EQUITY RESEARCH AMERICAS

Solar Energy Handbook
TECHNOLOGY Solar Energy SECTOR VIEW
Rating: 1 - POSITIVE

The Second Growth Phase of Solar Era
We expect the solar market to triple in the next four years as ongoing government incentives and accelerated cost reductions make solar electricity attractive in several regions of the world. We expect supply to exceed demand in 2009 potentially driving weaker manufacturers out of business. But we expect potential resolution of financing/permitting bottlenecks to mark the beginning of the second growth phase of the solar era as we believe new incentives in multiple markets and greater supply of lower priced panels should lead to accelerated shipment growth from 2010. We expect companies with strong balance sheets, low cost structure, and geographic diversification to emerge as winners during the second growth phase. In this extensive report, we examine the global solar market and investigate the market sizes, growth rates, market shares, and principal drivers for each of the major segments. The focus of this report is to provide a longer-term framework for industry and company analysis. We provide detailed updates on global solar incentives and updates on key areas of solar supply chain, solar equipment, and solar thermal markets. Solar currently represents less than 0.5% of global electricity generation. However, as renewable electricity gains importance in the $1 trillion global electricity market, we forecast solar photovoltaic shipments to rise at a compound annual growth rate of 50% for the next four years. We expect an increasing number of countries to promote s olar energy as the cost gap between solar and fossil fuel generated electricity closes.

Vishal Shah
1.212.526.4378 vishal.shah1@barcap.com BCI, New York

Analyst Certification
I, Vishal Shah, hereby certify (1) that the views expressed in this research report accurately reflect my personal views about any or all of the subject securities or issuers referred to in this research report and (2) no part of my compensation was, is or will be directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendations or views expressed in this research report.

We expect development of financing to remain the primary constraint during the second growth phase. Our base case forecast assumes $55 billion of financing in 2012 to support worldwide installations of more than 14 gigawatts at $4 per watt average system price. This compares with an estimated $40 billion of capital consumed by the industry in 2008 to install 6 gigawatts of solar capacity at $7 per watt average system price.

Barclays Capital does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. As a result, investors should be aware that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. Customers of Barclays Capital in the United States can receiv e independent, third-party research on the company or companies covered in this report, at no cost to them, where such research is available. Customers can access this independent research at www.lehmanlive.com or can call 1-800-253-4626 to request a copy of this research. Investors should consider this report as only a single factor in making their investment decision.

May 01, 2009

PLEASE SEE IMPORTANT DISC LOSURES BEGINNING ON P AGE 391

Solar Energy Handbook

Table of Contents Chapter 1: Investment Thesis ...........................................................................19 Chapter 2: Solar Background ..........................................................................59 Chapter 3: How to Screen Solar Stocks .............................................................69 Chapter 4: Solar PV Supply Chain Analysis ........................................................75 Chapter 5: Solar Equipment Market ................................................................101 Chapter 6: Solar Thermal Market ...................................................................115 Chapter 7: Key Solar PV Markets ...................................................................123 Chapter 8: Overview of U.S. Renewable Portfolio Standards ...............................175 Chapter 9: Solar Energy Project Development Process Overview ...........................201 Chapter 10: Solar Energy Basis ......................................................................215 Chapter 11: Glossary ...................................................................................233 Chapter 12: Performance Valuation & Financial Statistics ......................................239 Chapter 13: Earnings Models ........................................................................245 Chapter 14: Private Solar Companies ..............................................................289 Chapter 15: Company Descriptions .................................................................299 Chapter 16: Solar Energy 101 .......................................................................311 Table of Figures............................................................................................378

2

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Executive Summary "We know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century" President Barack Obama (Presidential Address to Congress, 2/24/09) While the near-term outlook for the solar sector may be considered bleak, we believe longterm prospects have never been this encouraging. As global economies take action to mitigate climate change, we expect an era of fundamental reshaping of the global energy infrastructure to create a prominent role for the renewable energy sector. Renewable electricity represented 2.5% of worldwide electricity generation in 2008 and we believe it could represent more than 20% of worldwide electricity generation, as policies to promote renewable energy are implemented globally over the next 20 years. In this report, we provide insights into what we believe may turn out to be one of the brightest new renewable energy sectors to emerge in the coming years. Sola r Power has historically been viewed as an expensive source of alternative energy generation. However, we expect ongoing transformation of the industry supply chain to cut solar electricity prices by half in 2009. More importantly, as the United States and other countries create mechanisms for pricing the external costs of carbon dioxide emissions into the marketplace, we expect the cost differential between solar power and other conventional sources of energy to diminish in an increasing number of markets globally . Solar industry shipments have increased at a 40% compound annual growth rate over the last five years primarily due to attractive incentive programs in markets such as Japan, Germany, and Spain. In our opinion, we are about to enter what we call “The second growth phase of the solar era”—where we expect demand for new solar installations to be generated from multiple markets. We see three key factors potentially driving demand during the second growth phase: 1) greater supply of lower priced solar panels; 2) new incentives in several emerging solar markets; and 3) potential resolution of permitting/financing bottlenecks that have impaired growth in several emerging solar markets so far. We expect the total subsidy pool for the solar industry to continue to grow as more countries provide a greater amount of incentives. During the second growth phase, we expect supply and availability of financing to drive demand. During the first growth phase, polysilicon prices in the spot market increased from $25 to $400 per kg and companies with relatively low reliance on spot market emerged as strong Wall Street's performers. We expect the following trends to potentially emerge as powerful differentiators between winners and losers during the second growth phase: 1) balance sheets; 2) capital intensity; 3) cost structure; and 4) geographic diversification. Given the early stage nature of this sector, we believe a lot of uncertainties remain about the execution capabilities of individual companies and government policies among all major markets. Having said that, we remain confident of the following: 1) growth will likely be significant; 2) volatility will likely be high as investor sentiment changes between investing in “growth” sectors (there are very few in this environment) and being concerned about valuation; and 3) market structure, business models, and strategies will likely change rapidly.
May 01, 2009 3

Solar Energy Handbook

We recommend investors take a long-term portfolio approach and build positions over time in order to mitigate some of the execution, macro, and sentiment risks. “Someday soon, green energy will no longer be an alternative; it will be the standard ahead. We mass-produced the car, and American manufacturing built the middle class. We sparked the IT revolution, and our high-tech industry fueled American prosperity for years. Today, being one step ahead means developing the green energy economy of the future before anybody else does.” U.S Senator Tom Udall, (D-NM) (US Senate, 2/2/09) How to Read This Report This report is focused on long-term themes in the solar sector and is written with several audiences in mind. Our aim is to examine broader sector trends in the rapidly growing solar sector as opposed to picking stocks in the near term. This report is lengthy and certain sections of the report may not be of interest to all readers; consequently, we suggest the following: Beginner—Very little understanding of the solar and alternative energy sector. Read Chapters 1, 2 and 16 first in order to familiarize with industry basics, then read Chapters 3 to 15. Intermediate—Already familiar with what solar is and believe in the potential, but not sure how solar fits into the overall renewables investment framework. Read Chapters 1 through 15. Expert—Already read several other solar “primers”—read Chapters 1 and 8. Below, we provide brief thoughts on key topics of interest to investors. Grid Parity Given the sharp decline in oil and natural gas prices, we are often asked if solar is still a feasible alternative to conventional fossil fuels.

4

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 1: Relationship Between Solar System Price and Natural Gas Prices
6000 5000

Solar System Pri ce ($/M W)

4000 3000 2008 N atural Gas Price $5W system cost required to reach grid parity

2000 1000 0 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 Current Natural Gas Price $3/W system cost required to reach grid parity

Natural Gas Price ($/MM BTU)

4.4

4.7

5.1

5.5

5.9

6.3

6.6

7.0

7.4

7.8

8.2

8.5

8.9

9.3

Source: Barclays Capital research

We believe the prospects for solar are still promising and our grid parity outlook has not deteriorated for the following reasons: 1) although we agree that average natural gas electricity prices are likely to decline by nearly 50% year over year in 2009 due to a decline in fuel costs, the price premium of solar electricity over natural gas electricity is likely to remain constant or even decrease somewhat if module prices decline to $2/W. More importantly, forecasts from Barclays Capital commodities and utilities teams suggest power prices are likely to increase during 2010–15, potentially leading to grid parity by 2012 in a scenario where no carbon tax is implemented in the U.S.; 2) if we assume a $15/MWhr carbon tax is implemented in the U.S. from 2011, we believe grid parity for California utilities is likely by 2011; and 3) we note that several utilities generally purchase renewable energy at a premium to conventional energy using the Market Price Referent (MPR) (which is typically $20/MWh premium to the natural gas generated electricity price) and by applying a Time of Delivery (TOD) multiplying factor. As shown in Figure 2, assuming PG&E purchases solar using TOD / MPR, solar has the potential to reach grid parity by 2010.

May 01, 2009

5

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 2: Potential Solar Grid Parity Scenarios
250

Powe r Price s ($/MWh) Solar Price ($/MWh)

200

Powe r Price s w ith Carb on T ax ($/M Wh) MPR Including T OD ($/MWh)

150

$/MWh
100 50 0 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E

Source: Barclays Capital research

Pricing We forecast module prices to decline from $3.70/W in 2008 to $1.00/W in 2015. We forecast balance of system costs for large systems to decline to $0.80/W by 2015 from the current levels of $1.50/W. Finally, we expect balance of system costs for small systems to decline from $2.50/W in 2008 to $1.35/W in 2015. Figure 3: Solar Module and Balance of System Pricing Trend
4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50
$/ W

BOS Cost - Small Systems Module Price BOS Cost - Large Systems

2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E

Source: Barclays Capital research

6

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

We believe the best-in-class solar module companies have the capability to produce solar panels for $1.15/W, sell at $1.50/W, and make 25% gross margins in a $50/kg poly price scenario. We believe approximately 40% of the solar industry has the capability to produce and sell modules at $1.50/W today. The median cost producers, many of which are European players, generally have non-silicon costs of $2.00/W. We estimate the cost structure and profitability of some of these companies would be challenged if poly prices decline to $50/kg. We believe the Japanese companies typically have a relatively high cost structure and may not be able to sell products for $1.50/W. Assuming the median solar companies cut costs and reduce their poly input costs even further, we see downside risk to $2/W panel prices in 2009. Thin Film Versus Silicon In our opinion, silicon technology would continue to lead the growth wave for the following reasons: 1) capital intensity of thin film players ($2/W) is higher than that of silicon players ($0.50–$1/W). We expect relatively low levels of vertical integration in the silicon space especially since upstream/midstream segments have more than adequate capacity to support near to medium term growth; and 2) new thin film technologies could find it difficult to scale and achieve bankability status. We believe companies such as Sharp that have strong balance sheets and have made significant technology advancements stand to potentially lead the thin film growth wave along with First Solar. For other start-ups particularly funded by equipment suppliers such as Applied Materials, success would depend to large extent on subsidy programs and manufacturing incentives of local governments. Where Will Growth Come From? During the first growth phase, markets such as Japan and Germany led most of the installation growth. Growth was largely within the small/medium size rooftop segment. Over the next three to five years, we see the potential for large commercial rooftops and ground mounted systems to achieve superior growth as the U.S. utilities become more aggressive with solar PV programs. In the near term until financing conditions improve, we expect growth to be limited to the small/medium size rooftop segment. In addition to the traditional markets such as Germany, Italy, and Spain, we expect Japan, China, U.S., Canada, and India to be the key swing markets with potential upside surprise in the 2010–12 timeframe. Growth Strategies During the first growth phase, the focus of most companies was to procure as much polysilicon supply as possible. During the second growth phase, we expect the focus of most companies to identify end markets for product deployment. To that extent, we expect execution strategies of companies to be defined by downstream acquisitions. Companies with larger contract wins should be able to scale their operations and increase market share. We expect more downstream M&A activity over the next three to five years as companies look to diversify geographically and establish new downstream channels.

May 01, 2009

7

We expect companies with downstream integration to better manage margins compared with companies without sufficient downstream integration. and 2) large-scale downstream companies (there are only a handful at present) strike alliances with upstream players. Earnings Momentum Could Potentially Turn Positive As shown in Figures 4 and 5. and several other markets.-based solar companies have also seen nearly a 45% reduction in EPS estimates during the corresponding period. 8 May 01.S. Although downstream vertical integration could potentially negatively impact margins. Unlike a unified P/E valuation approach used by many today. we believe by controlling the downstream channels. For thin film companies. Some of the factors that could cause positive earnings momentum include: 1) upside to 2009 and 2010 pricing expectations. we expect investors to assign a sum-of-parts valuation with EBITDA multiple for systems integration business and a growth P/E multiple for module segment. China. solar manufacturers with superior cost structure would be able to scale and also protect margin erosion.S.45 per share in March 2009. We believe Street estimates are fully discounting the near-term weakness in fundamentals (or perhaps one to two quarters away from bottoming) and potentially have room for upside as a result of recently announced incentive programs in Japan. We believe we are about to enter a phase of positive earnings momentum once estimates are reset over the next one to two quarters. we expect investors to assign a relatively low P/E multiple. We acknowledge that it is early to identify obvious winners in the race toward market leadership. Although the decline in U. we expect scale to be the primary cost differentiator and consequently we expect the emergence of EMS type business models in the mid-stream segment. We expect downstream players to lead the industry transformation as the power development market is localized as inherently more complex industry constraints have shifted from upstream to downstream. Street 2009 estimates for select Chinese solar stocks have declined from peak levels of $23 per share in September 2008 (beginning of the “solar meltdown”) to $3. we expect margins to decline depending upon their ability to achieve cost reductions. As cell/module players reach efficiency development limits.-based companies has not been this severe. Ten Reasons Select Solar Stocks Could Participate in the Near-Term Market Rally 1) Street Estimates Fully Discounting Near-Term Weakness. We expect a combination of business models to dominate the sector over the next three to five years as: 1) midstream players aggressively diversify downstream through power developer M&A. Long-Term Margin Outlook and Valuation Framework for the Sector Within the silicon value chain. and 2) for companies with downstream integration (mostly the case for market leaders). 2009 . we expect two separate frameworks to emerge over the next three to five years: 1) for companies with EMS type business models.Solar Energy Handbook We also see the potential for strategic alliances to emerge between large-scale solar power developers with strong financial backing and upstream polysilicon players with relatively strong balance sheets. we expect gross margins of the midstream players to improve in the near term as silicon costs decline faster than ASPs. we believe U.

00 2 010 EPS 1 0x 2 009 P/E 1 5x $1. We believe a combination of positive earnings momentum and valuation multiple re-rating could potentially lead to meaningful upside catalysts for selective solar stocks.50 $1. Solar stocks have historically seen significant P/E multiple expansion during periods of positive earnings momentum.0 $0. 2009 9 . FactSet May 01.Solar Energy Handbook 2) upside to 2009 margin expectations.S.00 2 0x $2.0 -44% Figure 5: 2009 EPS Es timate Reductions From Peak Levels -1 0% Fir s t Solar U Solar C om panies S SunPow er Ener gy Conv er s ion De vice s Yingli Gre e n Ene rgy Tr ina Sola r R ne Sola e SunTec h Pow e r MEM C Chine s e Solar C om panies JA Solar LDK Solar $20. Figure 4: China versus U.50 Source: Barclays Capital research.0 $10.0 $5.50 $2.00 $3. Consensus EPS Estimates $25. and 3) upside to 2010 volume expectations (we discuss these three points in more detail in this report). FactSet Source: Barclays Capital research.00 5x 2009 EPS x 3/200 9 2/200 9 1/200 9 12 /20 08 11 /20 08 10 /20 08 9/200 8 8/200 8 7/200 8 6/200 8 5/200 8 4/200 8 3/200 8 2/200 8 1/200 8 12 /20 07 11 /20 07 10 /20 07 9/200 7 8/200 7 7/200 7 6/200 7 5/200 7 4/200 7 3/200 7 2/200 7 1/200 7 12 /20 06 11 /20 06 10 /20 06 $0.0 $15. FactSet Figure 6: Suntech Power Earnings Momentum $4.0 1/1/2007 4/1/2007 7/1/2007 10/1/2007 1/1/2008 4/1/2008 7/1/2008 10/1/2008 1/1/2009 2009 US Companies 2009 Chinese Companies -5 9% -60% -78% -80% -8 3% -84% -85 % -8 9% -90% -49% Note: Numbers are an aggregate of companies under coverage Source: Barclays Capital research.50 3 0x 2 5x $3.

6 gigawatts). 10 May 01.S. we believe the industry could reach supply/demand balance in bear case scenario in 4Q10 if Japan/China demand does not pick up as expected in 2010 (Japan installs 270 megawatts and 500 megawatts in 2009 and 2010.S. Bull case scenario where China. China installs 60 megawatts and 100 megawatts in 2009 and 2010). Finally. Bear case scenario where demand declines by 40% in 2009 (3. Japan.S.6 gigawatts) and nearly 65% growth in 2010 (9.8 gigawatts). demand increases by 55% in 2010 (6. Base case scenario where demand declines by 25% in 2009 (4.2 gigawatts). we expect the 2010 demand outlook to improve significantly. Could Lead to Potential Demand Upside With the recent introduction of new incentives in China and Japan in addition to the U. Our analysis shown in Figure 7 suggests that the industry has the potential to reach supply/demand balance by 3Q09 in the bull case scenario (Japan installs 600 megawatts and 1 gigawatt in 2009 and 2010. upside leads to relatively flat demand in 2009 (5. We assume the market share of leading solar companies increases from 55% in 1Q09 to 80% in 4Q10. and 8 gigawatts in 2010. We also assume that the tier 2/tier 3 supply is not consumed by the industry due to concerns over warranty. We see upside potential to our and consensus 2010 demand estimates leading to a potentially more stable ASP environment compared with more than a 30% ASP decline baked into consensus estimates. 2009 . and 3. China installs 40 megawatts and 80 megawatts in 2009 and 2010). Japan. We believe potential for supply/demand balance by 4Q09 exists in the base case scenario (Japan installs 330 megawatts and 570 megawatts in 2009 and 2010. respectively). We assume that supply cuts continue in 1Q09 and 2Q09 such that supply decreases to 6.5 gigawatts). In this analysis.9 gigawatts in 2009 (versus current plans of approximately 7. incentives. and the U. we assume that the top solar companies continue to gain market share led by bankability and cost structure. respectively.5 to 8 gigawatts). We present three scenarios for the supply/demand outlook: 1. 2. and increases by 60% in 2010 (5. and the U.5 gigawatts). China installs 200 megawatts and 500 megawatts in 2009 and 2010.Solar Energy Handbook 2) New Incentives in China.

In our view. 60MW/100MW dem and in China in 2009/2010. We do not forecast an uptick in poly prices anytime soon. which in many cases are comparable to our margins and are also based on similar blended poly price assumption.500 Supply-Dem and balance by Q309 in Bull S cenar io if Japan.500 Bear Demand 1.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 7: Quarterly Supply Demand Outlook 3. China dem and picks up Supply-Demand balance by Q409 in B ase Scenario Supply 2. Base case ass um es 330MW/ 570MW demand in Japan in 2009/10.000 Bull Demand 2. our 2010 estimates are based on blended poly price assumption of $75– $100/kg. As discussed previously. May 01. 500 0 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09E 3Q09E 4Q09E 1Q10E 2Q10E 3Q10E 4Q10E Source: Barclays Capital research 3) Low Poly Costs Could Aid Margins Poly prices for most companies have declined and we expect leading solar companies to take advantage of this environment and report strong margins. In a scenario where poly prices decline to $40/kg. Bear case assumes 270MW/500MW in Japan in 2009/10 40M W/80MW demand in China in 2009/10. our estimates are based on 30%–40% year-over-year ASP declines and as such we believe consensus margins. we believe potential 10%–20% gross margin upside exists for all these stocks. 2009 11 .000 B ase Demand MW 1. China and the U. B ull case assumes 600MW/1GW demand in J apan in 2009/10. 200MW/ 500MW demand in China in 2009/10.S demand accelerates from 2H09 and also ass um es 1-2 m ore round of s upply c uts (in Q109/Q209) by all solar companies. As shown in Figure 8. consensus estimates (including our estimates) do not completely factor the $40/kg poly price scenario in 2010.000 S cenar io analys is as sumes Japan.

we expect to see an upward trend with respect to rolling EPS.S. write-downs. We also expect investor rotation out of structurally challenged stocks (companies with high non-silicon cost structures) into market leaders in the U. 6) Investor Capitulation Underway We also expect rotation out of the European stocks to the Chinese solar stocks. Checks with installers suggest that inventory levels have declined to reasonably low levels through a combination of reduced purchases. a scenario that we believe accurately reflects the potential pricing backdrop in Japan/China/U. solar stocks have seen significant downward estimate revisions reflecting the fact that expectations may be approaching a bottom soon.S. Company reports 4) Estimates Appear Reflect the Worst Case Scenario for Pricing Our 2010 estimates are based on 30%–40% ASP declines. and China. subsidy environment. As fundamentals start to improve. 5) Inventory Correction Underway Checks suggest module prices have stabilized over the past month or so suggesting that channel inventory may be reaching normalized levels. We believe inventory levels at the end of 1Q were potentially around 900MW and could likely decline to a more normalized 400MW to 500MW levels by 3Q09. 2009 .2010 Barcap STP CSIQ CSUN JASO LDK SOLF TSL YGE SOL 28% 11% 11% 17% 19% 8% 11% 26% 15% Consensus 16% 12% 13% 15% 21% 12% 19% 24% 16% Current Poly Price ($/kg) 74 80 69 1.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 8: 2010 Gross Margin Scenario Analysis Gross Margins . and sell-through demand. We believe project IRRs in several markets have the potential to reach inflection point at 30%–40% lower panel prices. We do not foresee a scenario where panel prices decline below cash cost levels of European players. would be impacted in such a scenario. As shown in Figure 9.09 98 69 85 108 84 Poly Price Potential ($/kg) 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 2010 GM Potential 28% 24% 28% 21% 48% 19% 33% 46% 40% Note: JASO Poly Price is in $/W cost for Wafers Source: Barclays Capital research. not pricing. volume. 12 May 01. Our pricing assumptions are also supported by the fact that non-silicon costs of several European manufacturers (that make up nearly 40% of worldwide capacity) are near $2/W. In our opinion. We do not expect much product from 4Q08–1Q09 to remain in the channel uninstalled until 3Q09. We disagree with the argument that panel prices could continue to drop if financing conditions do not improve and elasticity does not kick in.

dollars/RMB. Our current forecasts are based on the assumption of a relatively constant exchange rate.07 Oc t. 2009 Net r evisions 1. loan guarantee program) could likely lead to more stable financing conditions in 2010.50 0.00 Supp ly con stra ine d en viron ment.09 Ap r-0 9 1. Ma nag eme nt Cap itul ation -5 0 -6 0 Jan -06 Ap r -0 6 Jul 06 Oc t. U. Our FSLR forecasts assume that the foreign exchange rate declines from 1. Barclays Capital 7) Financing Conditions Set to Improve We continue to expect financing to be the biggest bottleneck for the industry in 2010. valu ation m ultip le e xp an sion Oversu ppl y. 8) Exchange Rate – From Headwind to Potential Tailwind Solar fundamentals are highly correlated to exchange rate fluctuations since most demand is generated in Europe and costs are either in U.20 through all of 2010. 2) new sources of funds (pension. val uatio n mul ti ple d estructio n -1 0 Esti mates.S.S. we believe a combination of 1) rising project IRRs (such that solar IRRs are greater than wind).S. va lua ti on mu ltipl e comp ressi on -2 0 -3 0 -4 0 In vestor. We expect potential U.00 0.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 9: Suntech Power Es timate Revisions 2.0 7 Jan -08 Ap r -0 8 Jul 08 Oc t -0 8 J an .50 Ph ase 1 Phase 2 Pha se 3 40 30 20 10 2. dollar against the Euro acted as a significant headwind for solar industry fundamentals. appreciation of the U.45 by 4Q10.50 N TM EPS 0 13 .20 in 3Q09 and remains constant at 1. Barclays Capital currency strategist David Woo expects the U. EPS.S. EPS red uctio n. however. dollar to depreciate against the Euro and approach 1. May 01. and 3) government injected capital (such as KfW. hedge funds).00 Source: FactSet.S.07 Ap r-0 7 J ul . In addition to tighter credit markets. EPS gro wth. sta ble to ri sin g prici ng . Mul ti ple s b otto med ? Ove rsup ply con cern s. dollar depreciation to act as potential tailwind for solar fundamentals in 2010.37 in 1Q09 to 1.0 6 J an .

We believe 1Q installation activity was negatively impacted by severe weather conditions in Germany and other key European solar markets. we find it difficult to see a scenario where project investor returns increase from $3 per watt (assuming $10 per watt net present value of government incentives.40 EUR/USD 1.20 FSLR Model Assumptions 1. 10) Balance Sheet Risks Diminishing. although margin pressure could persist as balance of power shifts downstream.10 1.30 1.00 Q108 Q208 Q308 Q40 8 Q1 09 Q209 Q309 Q409 Q110 Q210 Q310 Q41 0 Source: Barclays Capital research. the recent introduction of a stimulus package in China demonstrates broad-based government support for the leading Chinese solar firms. 2009 Outlook We believe near-term fundamentals continue to remain challenging. We believe over 60% of 1Q shipments occurred in March and were mostly for installation 14 May 01. Potential for Free Cash Generation in 2010 Within our coverage universe. $7 per watt system price) to $7 per watt (assuming $10 per watt incentives. However. In our opinion. Chinese solar stocks have a high net debt position and are likely most at risk. 1.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 10: Foreign Exchange Could Act As Potential Tailwind 1. Most companies have slowed down and/or halted capacity expansion plans and with declining poly prices and improving margins we believe the outlook for free cash generation in 2009 has improved. $3 per watt system price). First quarter shipments of the eight leading solar companies are expected to decline 13% year over year.60 1. We disagree with this view. FactSet 9) Bear Thesis Appears Overblown A common investor concern we have heard is that solar panel prices could decline to cash cost levels.50 FX Poten tial Tailwind FX Headwind Barclays FX Team Forecast Chin a Solar Mode l Assumptions 1. 2009 . We expect 2009 industry shipments to decline 25% year over year for a number of reasons.

Most of these firms are supporting existing clients and even incremental relatively low risk projects are finding it difficult to achieve sufficient financing.15% Decline YoY Total Shipments Source: Barclays Capital estimates 4.50/W 556MW 4. 15% lower system pricing is likely to result in about 20%–30% incremental shipments growth. we believe KfW's renewables financing budget is flat compared with 2008 budget of EUR4 billion.S.000 € 2.83/W 747MW 5. Figure 11: System Pricing vs. May 01.S.000 € 2. commercial segment continue to remain challenging. Shipments Growth 2008 Total KfW Financing (Euros MM) Portion for Solar (50%) Portion for Wind (50%) Debt to Equity Ratio Total Funding for Solar Sys tem Cost per Watt Total Shipments 2009 Total KfW Financing (Euros MM) Portion for Solar (50%) Portion for Wind (50%) Debt to Equity Ratio Total Funding for Solar Sys tem Cost per Watt . 2009 15 . commercial players such as SunPower have decreased significantly.857 € €3. Checks suggest KfW is allocating more funds to wind versus solar.000 € 80% 2.S. our checks suggest that several projects are on hold until further clarity over DOE loan guarantee program and ITC cash grants becomes available. In addition.500 € €4.000 € 2. New project announcements from several leading U. Inverter manufacturer SMA also guided 1Q shipments to decline 30%–35% year over year supporting our view of worse than normal 1Q seasonality. The number of tax equity financing firms has declined from nearly 10 in 2008 to only three to four in 2009. Declining new home construction activity and a deep recession are likely to impact residential installation activity in the U. We believe financing of large commercial/ground mounted projects (about 20% of market) in Germany is still very challenging as KfW funding is not readily available. 3.000 € 2. Checks suggest credit conditions in the U. higher equity portion (30% in 2009 versus 20% in 2008). 4. and Germany. 2. Although German lending conditions for solar are somewhat better than rest of Europe. Assuming wind/solar allocations are unchanged from 2008.Solar Energy Handbook activity in late April.000 € 70% 2.

Take the example of China. even in this segment.S. What does all this mean? We believe the U. growth in other emerging solar markets may not be sufficient to offset the expected Spanish market decline (over 2 gigawatts) in 2009. Solar Shipments 30GW Wi nd Insta lled (MW ) Sola r Install ed (MW) 25GW 20GW 15GW 10GW 5GW GW 2001 2002 200 3 20 04 2 005 2006 200 7 20 08 Source: Barclays Capital Research. dollar. but we believe growth could be constrained by permitting issues as well. The promise of solar is in distributed generation especially in areas where transmission access is limited. and German markets could end up being flat in 2009.000 in 2008). Finally. Solarbuzz 16 May 01. We believe solar programs targeted for rural China/India would be a key focus for those governments.000 households installing solar in 2009 versus 415. we believe it is difficult for c-Si module players to compete effectively as incentives are significantly lower in 2009 (only First Solar can effectively compete in this segment). In terms of market segments. Installation costs in China can end up being less than $1 per watt (cheap labor. 2009 . home grown inverters). Wind technology may have achieved its full potential in terms of cost reduction. Solar module prices can drop to $1 per watt if companies like YGE and STP can achieve scale and poly drops below $50 per kg.S. Figure 12: Global Wind vs. We believe solar will get there over the next three years and has the potential to even surpass wind's cost structure if new disruptive low-cost technologies are commercialized. we believe the Japanese market may remain weak ahead of the implementation of new incentive program and the South Korean market could be impacted by over 40% depreciation of the Won against the U. We believe financing conditions in Italy/France still remain difficult. Our view is that both wind and solar technologies would experience similar growth curves. In our view.Solar Energy Handbook Furthermore. commercial segment (approximately 30% of shipments) to decline by 25% and ground mounted segment (approximately 25% of shipments) to decline by 50%. we forecast the residential segment (approximately 45% of shipments) to show some growth (500. We expect these markets to grow. solar on roof-tops (distributed generation) would be cheaper than wind. At $2 per watt system price in rural China. Global Wind Energy Council. 6.

7 1. 7 1. 0 NM 0. 1 0.5 Source: FactSet. 6 1.2 0. 2 22.48 Mean Median 99 233 68 222 8 153 130 126 128 274 NM 2. 4 1.84 0.5 1. 5 2. 3 0.6 0.2 0. 5 9. 3 2.80 Mean Median 1.7 NM 1. 3 0.1 0.6 1.6 23.1 5.4 1. 5 10. 6 11. 8 1. 6 0. 8 1. 4 NM 0.2 0.344 2. 8 1.6 0. 5 0. 7 2. 3 1.1 0.9 EV to Sales 2009E 2010E 0.992 518 3.38 14. 9 0. 9 0. 8 0.8 1. 4 0. 2 0. 9 13. 2 1.8 1.0 13.719 2. 653 2. 7 0.50 4. 2 0. Company reports. 6 0.1 0.2 0. 5 2.7 NM 0.00 584. 3 Pri ce to Earnings 2009E 2010E NM 25. 199 3.1 1. 6 22.3 0.5 0. 4 36.5 13.8 0. 2 1. 4 0. 6 7.29 3. 1 0.6 0.3 1. 7 1.0 7. 4 1.8 9. 3 1. 751 2.4 0.7 13. 8 13. 4 10. 3 2. 7 0.7 0.00 95.2 NM 0. 8 11. 4 0.390 784 Enterprise Value ($M) 195 701 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.38 Mean Median 894 3. 6 6. 000.00 79. 7 8. 2 1. 9 1.2 0. 1 0.79 2.1 7. 4 7.7 0.133 2. 2 0.1 0. 4 12.00 3.1 1. 2 0. 2 0. 2 0.2 Sol ar E qui pment C omposi te GT Solar R ot h & Rau C entrot herm Oerlik on Spire BTU International Manz Automat ion Meyer Burger S OLR B142TD4 B 2885W 6 4612757 SP IR B TU I B1D XPB B1HDMD 2-EW 3-UW 2-EW NR NR NR 2-EW 2-EW 1-OW 2-Neu 2-Neu NR NR NR 2-Neu 2-Neu U SD E UR E UR SW F U SD E UR E UR SW F 7. 5 0.7 2010E NM 0. 5 NM 9. 9 NM NM NM NM NM N/A N/A NM NM 13. 3 0.2 1. 8 2.4 0.80 2.3 1.535 2.7 NM 13.6 2.55 4.1 NM 13.2 2. 5 1.1 NM NM N/A N/A Verti call y I ntegrated Manufacturers R EC Solar World Trina Solar Yingli Green Energy REC-NO 581986 TS L YGE 1-OW NR 2-EW 1-OW 2-Neu NR NR NR N OK E UR U SD U SD 60.09 18. 8 4. 5 1. 1 0. 5 2. 7 0. 634 3. 1 7.8 14. 0 0.6 1. 5 NM 4. 2009 17 . 8 1. 6 1.3 NM 0.3 17. 2 11.2 0. 0 1.4 0. 5 2.0 17. 2 0. 3 0.2 21.6 NM 0.5 1. 7 7. 9 1.1 NM 0. 8 1. 598 2. 6 1.65 14.6 0.2 16. 9 2. 3 1.3 0.5 0.6 0. 346 2. 6 1. 1 10.021 316 727 770 61 45 161 428 358 372 928 203 615 NM 59 23 79 394 229 203 1. 2 0.92 9.924 640 742 1.2 NM 13. 2 0. 0 2.2 2. 8 1. 2 18. 6 13.51 93. 6 1. 468 0. 4 1.6 NM NM NM 0.74 34.1 0.7 18. 1 0.1 0. 7 1. 2009) C ompany Sol ar C ell Manufacturers C hina Sunergy Energy C onversion Devices ErSol E-Ton Ev ergreen Solar First Solar J A Solar Motech Q-C ell s SunPow er SunTech P ow er Ticker CS UN EN ER B0LGLV4 B06BMV ESLR FSLR JASO 660944 QC E-D E SPW RA STP Rating 2-EW 3-UW NR NR 2-EW 2-EW 1-OW NR 2-EW 2-EW 3-UW S ector R ating 1-Pos 1-Pos NR NR 1-Pos 1-Pos 1-Pos NR 2-Neu 1-Pos 1-Pos Local C urrency U SD U SD E UR TWD U SD U SD U SD TWD E UR U SD U SD Price 4/30/2009 3.00 16. 2 0.8 1.4 0. 4 NM 0.8 0.23 27.5 -9.6 1. 087 4. 4 1. 7 PEG 2009E NM 0. 7 0. 0 0.93 Mean Median Pol ysili con M anufacturers LDK Sol ar MEMC R eneS ola Shin-Et su Chemical Sino-American Silicon Sumco Tokuyama Corporation Topc o Sc ientif ic OCI W ac ker Market Cap ($M) 120 784 1. 9 1. 157 112 4. 9 0.5 0. Barclays Capital estimates May 01. 6 1. 4 7.3 0. 2 0.60 2. 7 1. 6 1. 1 0.3 0.4 0. 1 0. 2 7. 0 NM 0.8 NM 8.4 LDK W FR SOL 4063 633527 3436 4043 625408 649700 B 11Y56 2-EW 1-OW 2-EW NR NR NR NR NR NR 1-OW 1-Pos 1-Pos 1-Pos NR NR NR NR NR NR 2-Neu U SD U SD U SD JP Y TWD JP Y JP Y TWD KRW E UR 8. 1 0. 0 1. 8 0.4 0. 7 3.5 12.6 13.50 21.9 1. 1 1.2 0. 899 2.442 547 699 1.98 Mean Median 4. 6 10. 4 17.5 13.1 0.1 1. 5 2. 2 6. 4 0. 5 0.0 0. 4 13.4 0. 5 14.5 NM 0.8 0.5 System I ntegrators C armanah Technologies C entros olar AG C onergy Solars trom Sunways *C MH B0LL75 706672 566211 703682 NR NR 2-EW NR NR NR NR 2-Neu NR NR C AD E UR E UR E UR E UR 0. 8 NM 13.14 6.38 104.20 3.6 Module Manufacturers aleo s olar C anadian Solar Solar-Fabrik Solarf un Solart ron Solon AG B189YN CS IQ 739438 SOLF B06XP07 7450738 NR 3-UW NR 3-UW NR 3-UW NR 1-Pos NR 1-Pos NR 2-Neu E UR U SD E UR U SD TH B E UR 5.4 0.47 4. 2 0.722 104 3.2 0.1 0.1 NM 0.2 1. 2 8.994 601 6.9 1.5 0. 0 NM 5.9 14. 4 0.10 1.2 0.5 16. 1 0. 0 2.6 11.2 16.7 9. 7 1. 266 2. 4 NM 3. 3 0. 2 1.0 23.6 NM 28.894 1.434 279 393 15.2 -0.00 78. 0 2.6 1. 3 1.3 0.6 13.3 0. 9 2.436.00 7. 334 10 401 629 274 0. 4 14.0 4.0 0. 6 1.0 NM NM 6. 8 0.1 0.8 0.999 4.1 0.1 7.3 0. 1 16.004 5. 4 2.1 1.9 7. 6 0. 9 1.3 14.1 0.00 16.1 1.2 0.2 0. 3 1. 3 NM 0.6 11. 0 0. 2 0.4 0.04 18. 8 1. 6 1. 0 5.9 0.2 0.0 15. 3 2. 7 3.6 7.3 1.5 23. 7 2.203 2. 1 1. 3 1. 2 0. 3 1. 5 0. 9 11.9 1.5 0. 898 667 3.35 66.4 1.6 0. 2 5.8 10.1 0.9 0.1 0. 7 0.9 NM 1.08 29. 4 6. 9 5.78 1. 1 6. 5 2. 7 15.2 1.7 0.5 30. 538 742 Price to Sales 2009E 2010E 0.31 Mean Median 42 53 197 28 34 71 42 33 148 NM 35 56 68 45 0.29 0. 2 8.78 158.7 0. 1 0.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 13: Global Solar Company Valuations (As of April 30.647 227 21. 259 5. 1 14.35 225. 1 37.3 7. 3 0.1 1.4 4. 2 0. 3 11. 422 560 666 14. 1 0.4 NM 28. 4 6. 7 0. 089 2. 5 0. 662 3. 1 12. 778 478 19.43 187. 6 1.105 401 903 2. 0 9. 2 0.2 0.9 0.760. 9 1.2 NM 0. 6 0. 3 0.2 0. 3 0.91 6.4 8.6 5.526 1.5 1. 2 0. 4 0.9 1. 9 1. 5 11. 6 1.9 0. 3 0.7 0. 4 5.331 4.8 5.3 0. 1 2. 9 11. 0 1. 2 0. 2 11.4 NM NM NM NM 0.6 2. 9 NM NM 0. 3 5.6 10.7 12.9 0.00 25. 3 NM 0.5 0.3 0. 8 1. 9 0.0 30.8 0.8 26. 3 0.403 3.5 1.3 3. 3 0.

2009 .Solar Energy Handbook 18 May 01.

Solar Energy Handbook Chapter 1: Investment Thesis May 01. 2009 19 .

Figure 14: Potential Renewable Energy Investment Drivers SECULAR TREND CYCLICAL TREND ENERGY DEMAND LOW INTEREST RATES ENERGY SUPPLY WEAK DOLLAR JOB CREATION ENERGY I MPACT ENERGY ECONOMICS ENERGY SECURITY Strong/ Positive Source: Barclays Capital research Weak/ Nega tive 1. 3) increasing trend toward using carbonneutral solutions to address the climate change problem. 4) improved renewable energy cost economics. 2) depleting supply of traditional energy sources. We also see significant potential for India and China to become large solar energy demand centers once solar achieves grid parity. we expect overall demand growth in those regions to cause upward pressure on overall energy demand. 2009 . Rising energy demand particularly from emerging economies such as India and China. and 5) geopolitical factors such as energy security creating a positive shift in the energy policy of major governments globally.Solar Energy Handbook The Long-Term Investment Case for Renewable Energy We believe new investments in the global renewable energy sector should accelerate due to several potential long-term secular growth drivers: 1) increasing energy demand particularly resulting from strong growth of emerging economies such as India and China. 20 May 01. Although we do not expect India and China to become large solar energy users anytime soon.

Solar Energy Handbook Figure 15: GDP Growth versus Per Capita Elec tricity Consumption 10% 9% 8% 7% GDP G rowth 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 Per Capita Consum ption (kWh) Mex ico Brazil Russia OECD Europe Japan India South Korea Australia United St ates Canada China Source: Barclays Capital research 2. Figure 16: Reserve Period (Number of Years) of Traditional Energy Resources Years 250 US Coal Reserve Period 200 150 World Coal Reserve Period 100 W orld Natural Gas Reserve Peri od 50 World Oil Reserve Period 0 0.0% 6. Depleting energy supply.0% 2.0% 1.0% 3. 2009 21 . particularly traditional sources of energy such as coal. and natural gas. we see the potential for new solar supply to influence peak power generation demand.0% 4.0% 5. Assuming the solar achieves grid parity in 2012.0% 10. we see the potential for further solar penetration in coal-based electricity markets.0% 8. We see the potential for natural gas resources to be readily replaced by solar PV technologies and once appropriate low-cost storage solutions are developed.0% 9.0% 7.0% Europe Natural Gas Reserve Period Annual Rate of Dep letion Source: World Energy Council May 01. oil.

2009 . Solar’s forecast contribution to CO 2 reduction would be 14% in Greece. Figure 17: Potential Solar Contribution to Carbon Emissions Reduction By 2012E 21% 14% 12% 8% 1% U. and 8% in Spain. We believe solar is the cleanest form of alternative energy solution and could be most effectively used by several countries to solve the carbon problem. 3% South Korea 4% Japan Spain France G reece I taly Source: Barclays Capital research 22 May 01. Environmental impact such as climate change from the use of traditional fossil fuel generated sources of energy. Solar could potentially contribute to 21% of Italy’s CO 2 reduction goal by 2012. It is widely understood that traditional sources of electricity generation such as coal are the greatest source of carbon emissions globally. 12% in France. S.Solar Energy Handbook 3.

8% 6 .0% 3 4.0% 20. 2009 23 .Solar Energy Handbook Figure 18: European Union Target Shares of Renewables by 2020 Ma lta L uxembor g Belg ium 0.7% 10 . May 01.1 % T h e Nether lan ds 2 .2% 1 0. Barclays Capital research 4.0% 23.0% 15.0% 1 1.3% 2 8.0% 18 .9 % 8.0 % 3 0.8 % Sh are o f Re newa ble s (2 005 ) T arg et sh are o f Re ne wa ble s ( 202 0) 16 .3% 7 .0% 1 8.0% 1 5.7% 1.0% 25 . solar is already competitive in several regions of the world with high solar insolation and relatively high fossil fuel electricity costs. Decreasing solar energy costs and increasing fossil fuel generated energy costs leads to improved economics for solar energy sector.1 % Bulg ari a Ita ly G er ma ny G ree ce Spai n F ran ce L ithu ani a Ro ma ni a Slo veni a Esto ni a Den ma rk Po rtuga l Austri a F inl an d La tvi a Swe de n Source: EPIA.0% 31. We expect grid parity.3 % 15.0% 1 7.4 % 5.9 % 2.0 % 1 4.0 % 1 7.0% 23 .5% 3 4.0% 18.0 % 1 3. to be achieved by the 2010–12 time frame. In fact.0% 1 6. or the point at which solar electricity is competitive with fossil fuel generated electricity.3 % 6 .8% 1 6.2% 5 .0% Cypr us 2 .0% 0.0 % 13 .2 % Irel an d 3 .5% 2 3.0 % 2 5.9 % Hu nga ry T he C ze ch Rep ubl ic 4 .0% 3 8.4 % T he Slo vak Rep ubl ic Unite d Ki ngd om Pol an d 6.0% 9 .0% 1 4.9% 39 .0% 4 2.0% 4 9.0 % 2 0.0% 13 .0% 13 .0 % 1 7.0 % 24 .

2 0. Barclays Capital U. Consumer Wallet Spent on Electricity 2. Countries with government solar incentives have one thing in common: high net energy imports as a percentage of energy use.6 0. 2/2/09) Figure 20: Electricity-Genera ting Assets in Key Solar Markets Co untry Germ any Japan US Fr ance S pain P or tugal Italy Greec e Irel and South K or ea Net En erg y Impo rts as a % o f Ene rgy Use 61% 84% 28% 50% 76% 83% 85% 67% 87% 82% Pr imar y Ele ctr icity So urce Coal (60%) Oil Coal (33%) T otal Installed Capac ity (GW) 120 248 960 113 67 12 77 12 6 62 In sta lled Solar Capacity (G W) 2.03 0.2% 1.1 0.01 0. We expect an increasing number of countries to look at solar energy as costs of solar modules decline and as prevailing high oil prices result in a greater focus on energy independence.S. Utili ty Sector Analyst 5.0% 1. two countries that sit on more than 43% of the world's gas reserves and two countries that have shown their willingness to use energy as an instrument of coercion. Barclays Capital research In addition to the long-term growth drivers.05 Nucl ear (60%) Coal Coal Oil Coal Oil Coal Source: EIA. but we consume 25% of the world's supply. That increasingly means sending American dollars to Russia and Iran.8% 1.S Senator Tom Udall. (D-NM) (US Senate.06 0. “…America has just 3% of the world's natural gas reserves.” U.6 1.4% 1.7% Estimates 1.3% 1. we believe the following near-term trends could also positively influence clean energy demand growth: 24 May 01.0% 196 0 1964 1 968 19 72 197 6 1980 1984 198 8 1992 1996 2 000 20 04 200 8 2012 Source: Dan Ford. 2009 .S.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 19: Percentage of U.1% 2.9% 1.6% 1.5% 1.02 0.7 0.1% 1. Geopolitical factors such as energy security creating a positive shift in the energy policies of all major governments globally.

07 Interest Rates Source: FactSet Job creation potential in a weak global economic outlook. Renewable Energy Policy Project.Solar Energy Handbook Lower interest rate environment potentially creating a favorable capital cost outlook for several technologies such as solar thermal (approximately 80% of cost of solar thermal projects is capital cost). 2009 25 .86 Jan. Figure 21: Interes t Rate Environment Acts As a Tailwind for Solar Fundamentals 21% High Interest Rate Environment 18% Cost of capital and expected rate of return often represent the largest cost component of solar electricity costs. job creation potential of solar is the highest among electricity generation technologies. Lower interest r ate environment plays an impor tant role in overall solar electr icity cost r eduction 15% 12% 9% Low Inter est Rate Environment 6% 3% 0% Jan-71 Jan-74 Jan-77 Jan-80 Jan-83 Jan. BC Sustainable Energy Association. Figure 22: Job Creation Potential of Various Electricity Genera tion Technologies 40 Number of Jobs per MW 30 20 10 0 C oal Na tura l Gas Nucl ear Tidal Wind Geothe rmal Bioma ss Ded icated Stea m Solar PV Source: INEEL. As shown in Figure 22. Barclays Capital research May 01.89 Jan-92 Jan-95 Jan-98 Jan-01 Jan-04 Jan.

There are several other variables that influence electricity prices. aging transmission capacity.00 Strong W eak Source: Barclays Capital research. Company Reports. '000 mar ket c ap.00 Price Outlook Spain Aug-05 $66. $b n 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 employ ees market c ap employees market cap Source: Thomson Financial.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 23: Microsoft Employees versus Market Cap em ployees . 2009 . Spain. '000 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 mar ket c ap. we highlight the following two points: Government policies in Germany.50 $33. Company reports. 26 May 01. Barclays Capital research Source: Thomson Financial. Barclays Capita l research Some individuals say the solar boom was a result of high oil prices. As a different perspective. Electricity price increases are not just a function of high oil prices. and Japan—the three primary drivers of solar energy today—were put in place when oil prices were near $30/bbl. natural gas plants and increasing lead times are just a few variables. $b n 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Figure 24: Solar Employees versus Market Cap em ployees . For instance. As we discuss in detail in this report. Figure 25: Oil Price and Government Incentives Date of initial solar incentives Japan Germany Jan-94 Jan-04 Oil Price ($/bbl) $14. higher capital expenditures for coal. we believe solar electricity has the potential to be competitive with fossil fuel-generated electricity even if oil prices reach $30/bbl. Factset Solar sector has no fundamental correlation to oil prices.

In our opinion. solar thermal and storage technologies. We expect the third wave of investments to be characterized by second generation solar PV technology. We see a number of potential new solutions by 2011.Solar Energy Handbook Bottom Line: We believe that wind and ethanol represented the first wave of investments to address the changing macro energy trends. We believe solar today is where wind was five years ago. Figure 26: Solar Energy Investment Potential Growth Drivers Revenue Solar P V Wind Ethanol Gen 2 Solar PV S olar Thermal Storage Electric Cars S olar "killer apps" 2001 2006 2010 2014 Time Source: Barclays Capital research May 01. 2009 27 . Just as “killer apps” such as email and the Internet accelerated growth of the technology sector. we are currently in the second wave of investments in the global clean energy sector. we believe the pervasiveness of solar technology will drive several new applications once solar reaches grid parity. Finally. we expect the fourth wave of solar investments to be influenced by solar applications such as electric cars.

Figure 27 shows oil forecasting trends and Figure 28 shows the U. where demand could potentially be driven by multiple markets.9 million Actual 3. and Spain to the second growth phase. May 2008.Solar Energy Handbook Three Phases of Solar Investing We believe the solar industry is currently transitioning from the first growth phase where demand was driven by two to three major markets such as Germany. oil price.S. Solar is no different. Khosla Ventures. We expect grid parity to be achieved in several key markets by 2010–12. Aggressive growth scenario predicts tota l solar installed capacity of 400GW by 2020. Khosla Ventures. 2009 . M cKinsey Quarterly .S. Figure 27: Oil Forecasting Trends 50 F orecast F orecast Actual Act ual 45 Oil Price in $/Barrel 40 5 Year F orecast Error Forecast 30 Actual F orecast 25 Forecast 20 Act ual Act ual 1985 Act ual 1990 1995 2000 Forecast Actual 10 Year F orecast Error 35 Forecast 15 Source: Vinod Khosla. We believe solar energy demand forecasts are also likely to be wrong. So how do we forecast demand? Our demand forecasting framework is based on two primary growth drivers for solar: development of government subsidies and development of 28 May 01. May 2008. The forecasting errors for solar demand will be of even greater magnitude in our view. Barclays Capital research Figure 28: U. Note McKinsey solar estimates are for Photovoltaic base case scenario only. which could potentially mark the beginning of the third growth phase for the solar sector. Forecasting Solar Demand Demand forecasting has been the biggest challenge for almost all growth sectors.1989) Herschel Shostek Associates McKinsey for AT&T (1980 . Mobile Subscribers Forecasting Trends Source Fortune (1984 . June 2008. and financing development. The difference between actual demand and forecasts was surprising in both these cases. Barclays Capital research. as development depends on subsidy. mobile subscribers forecasting trends.5 million 180 million 109 million % Annual Error 70% 20-30% 606% 160GW cumulative demand by 2020. 20GW annual installations by 2020 ??? Source: Vinod Khosla. Japan.2000) McK insey on Solar 2008-2020 McKinsey Quarterly June 2008 Forecasts 1 million 60-90 million 0.

such that the overall market size is the same. In our view. we expect the following factors to affect solar industry shipments: Supply of silicon and solar cells. the solar ecosystem receives $7–$9/W up front. Figure 29: Solar Subsidies Should Provide Significant Catalyst for Solar Demand Profits Accumulated Over 20-25 Years Subsidies of ~$13/W Paid Over 20-25 Years = Upfront Purchase of $7-9/W by Customer Demand /Reven ue Growth for Solar Value C hain Source: Barclays Capital research In general. Although the $13 government incentive is provided over a period of 20 or 25 years. The upper limit to market growth is likely to be defined by government subsidies: as long as government subsidies grow. once solar achieves grid parity. solar market growth would be faster if the subsidies are spent in fewer years and it would be slower if the subsidies are spent in more years. We believe solar market growth in a subsidy-driven environment is likely to be driven primarily by execution and development of financing. We expect solar market growth to be determined by how quickly or slowly the solar value chain takes advantage of government subsidies. In our view.Solar Energy Handbook financing. Government support in the form of improved levels of subsidies in existing and new markets. we expect increased support from new governments in the form of more attractive solar subsidies to drive demand. May 01.. We expect the supply of solar cells to increase rapidly.e. as long as solar demand is driven by government subsidies—investors should focus on volumes times price. the solar market is likely to be driven by the pure economics of supply/demand and is likely to have one less growth driver (no government subsidies). We believe solar market growth is likely to depend on how quickly these solar incentives provided by the government are transferred to the solar value chain through the customer. solar market size should grow. as long as solar is not at grid parity—i. as a result of an increase in production from new and existing silicon players. if a 1W solar system costs $9 and the government incentives are approximately $13/W. Although we believe Germany will remain an important market for solar energy demand. as long as these two growth drivers are intact. the solar market (the entire value chain) in dollar terms should grow at a robust pace. We believe that. as well as successful commercialization by new thin-film solar manufacturers. not just on volumes or on price. If volumes increase rapidly. prices should decrease in a similar proportion. We believe that. For instance. the net profit to the customer is approximately $4/W. during the next five years. 2009 29 .

Solar Energy Handbook Favorable solar system ASP trends. Moreover. Figure 30: Potential Solar Demand Drivers Silicon/Solar Supply Solar AS Ps Government Subsidies Solar Demand (Volume) Int erest Rates/Financial Incentives Local E lectricity Rates Source: Barclays Capital research Figure 31: Solar – Multistage Growth Cycle Sta ge of Grid Pa rity Economics takeover p ost grid parity Greater subsidies ne ar grid pa rity Subsidies primary growth driver We believe we are here Time Source: Barclays Capital research 30 May 01. we expect the gap between the solar electricity price and fossil-fuel-generated electricity price to narrow. We expect solar ASPs to decline approximately 50% in 2009 and another 30% in 2010. and coal-based electricity increases from 2010. leading to strong demand. As the cost of oil. greater availability of solar modules. we believe the low interest rate environment should result in favorable economics for project developers. natural gas. Development of local fossil fuel–generated electricity rates. Development of interest rates and other financial instruments driving solar demand. 2009 . which should improve the economics of promoting solar for several prospective new governments. Last. and the reduction of installation costs to drive additional solar demand. we expect the development of a solar ecosystem in the form of better customer awareness.

2009 31 Solar Energy Handbook .Figure 32: Solar Market Development Dem and from sm all num ber of markets Grid Par ity US G er many G ermany Relative M arket Size Potential US Italy Japan Italy France Spain South Kor ea Japan Canada Australia Belgium Netherlands Portugal Netherlands Austria Cyprus Israel Belgium Austria France India Greece China Czec h Republic Switzerland Germany South Korea China Gr eece India Czec h Republic Is rael Aus tralia Spain Canada Spain Portugal Japan P hase 1 S ubsidiz ed Demand Cy pr us Switz erland Phase 2 Subsidized Dem and P hase 3 Unsubs idized Dem and Source: Barclays Capital research May 01.

we believe the German government committed to spend an estimated $1. Figure 33: Effect of Incentives in Major Markets on PV Shipments 6000 Spain 5000 4000 Japan. we saw very little push back from governments. During phase 1 of industry growth. We believe an estimated $103 billion of market cap was created during phase 1 of solar industry growth.450MW of solar shipments and represented 26% of installations in 2007. Due to the relatively small overall impact of subsidies on overall electricity bills during growth phase 1. Germany and Spain were the primary industry growth drivers. and Spain. Poly prices increased from $25 to $400 per kg during the first growth phase and companies with relatively low reliance on spot poly emerged as Wall Street's top performers. Japan. 2009 .5 billion per year of net subsidies over 20 years and the Spanish government committed to spend an estimated $600 million per year of net subsidies over 25 years. We believe the key factors determining growth during this phase were polysilicon or solar supply and development of subsidies.Solar Energy Handbook Growth Phase 1: Demand from Small Number of Markets We define growth phase 1 for the solar sector as the period for the solar industry through 2008 when demand was generated only from two to three major markets such as Germany. Solar industry installed base grew from less than 1GW in 1990 to over 10GW by 2008 Megawatts Germany 3000 2000 Japan 1000 0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Source: Solarbuzz. Barclays Capital research 32 May 01. The period through 2008 was mainly a seeding stage for emerging solar markets as during this period the emerging markets added a cumulative 3.

167 $114 NT$40.97 2 $10.963 $2.135 $39 C$ 20 ¥93.28 7 € 107 € 6.6 6.618 $1.3 1.2 8.876 $305 € 2.388 € 115 € 63 $21 £79 $658 $29 € 64 $1.3 8.688 ¥1.6 3.01 8 NT$40.9 1.059.457 € 45 € 2.1 8.376 $61.300 € 631 $2.9 2.61 5 € 1.650 $125 ¥937.950 NT$2 .077 $12 NT$1 .894 $72 C$ 25 ¥109.830 € 62 € 3.9 2. 968 $1.2 8.635 € 30 $132 € 412 $392 $2.1 Market Value Creation (M) $19.011 C$ 1.4 8.852 $1.8 7.9 1.548 € 129 $566 € 346 € 21 € 117 $328 ฿5 52 $1.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 34: Market Cap Crea tion by Solar Companies in Growth Phase 1 (Ending August 2008) Company First Solar Meyer Burger Manz Automation Akeena Solar Rene sola JA Solar Ascent Solar Roth & Rau SunPower Evergreen Sino-American SolarW orld L DK Timminco DC Chemical Q-cells REC Solon ECD ErSol Trina Solar Suntech MEMC CSI Wacker Spire Motech Sumco Topco Scientific BTU Internat ional Carman ah Tokuyam a Corp Solar-Fabrik Oerlikon Yingli Shin-Etsu Ch emical Sunways E-Ton aleo Solar Solarfun Conergy Solarstrom Centrosolar China Sun ergy Solartron GT Solar Total Beginning Market Cap (M ) $1.3 2.025 ¥622.4 0. 403 kr 2 8.212 € 4.6 7.219.9 8.007 $2.8 42 € 80 NT$24.269 kr 45.2 3.592 $113 € 270 $4.3 8.279 € 13 NT$244 (€ 8) -$34 (€ 82) (€ 22) (€ 68) -$93 -฿1.855 $9.22 2 Years 1.1 1. 2009 33 .274 € 1.699 C$ 42 ₩159 .6 84 $714 € 6.791.7 8.2 2.6 2.9 1.7 7.029 $111 C$ 45 ¥203.119 € 4.672 kr 73.92 9 $1.917 ₩ 7.72 5 $164.7 7.6 2.6 2.4 2.117 $808 $409 € 3.4 1.3 2.24 9 $142 € 333 $5.6 1.6 2.3 8.482 € 670 $280 $2.648 $93 NT$24.029 Market Cap (8/10/08) $20.081 $672 $4.959 ₩ 7.990 € 4.006 NT$38. 176 ¥ 391.849 ¥230.193 % change in Market Ca p 1384% 670% 821% 420% 417% 242% 390% 424% 451% 8313% 3454% 5276% 74% 4582% 4433% 233% 158% 2090% 1878% 163% 71% 135% 1222% 75% 75% 449% 164% 59% 229% 184% 129% 117% 72% 67% 7% 51% 19% 1% -6% -6% -19% -50% -37% -22% -72% -27% Maket Cap CAGR 374% 228% 224% 133% 126% 115% 115% 108% 87% 77% 65% 61% 59% 56% 56% 52% 52% 45% 41% 40% 39% 38% 35% 35% 27% 22% 20% 18% 16% 13% 10% 9% 9% 6% 6% 5% 2% 0% -3% -4% -6% -8% -15% -18% -31% -99% - Source: Bloomberg.129 € 76 $2. 518 $21 NT$15.00 8 NT$7.7 1.7 1. 304 € 137 $600 € 428 € 43 € 185 $421 ฿ 1. 854.4 8.0 1.6 8.4 5.9 2.210 € 773 € 513 $89 £329 $1.1 2.083 $4. Barclays Capital research May 01.2 8.5 98 € 889 € 576 $110 £408 $2.935 € 662 $2.6 8.81 4 ¥2.058 NT$4. 411 -$651 $103.71 0 C$ 1.5 2.938 € 3.563 € 67 NT$24.

We believe the government incentives in the form of feed-in tariffs act as an annuity stream for project investors. 34 May 01. Greater supply of lower priced solar panels. In our view. new downstream channels would develop to take advantage of the incentives. we expect project investors to add leverage and increase returns. similar to interest earned on a government bond. Our view is that as more supply becomes available and as project returns exceed certain thresholds. Consequently.Solar Energy Handbook Growth Phase 2: Subsidized Demand from Multiple Markets We Expect the Second Growth Phase for the Solar Sector to Begin in 2010 During the second growth phase. 2009 . We are currently forecasting below $2 per watt prices in 2010 and at these price levels. We see three potential main drivers resulting in strong growth in several emerging solar markets during the second growth phase: 1. investing in solar is equivalent to investing in a government bond. we expect demand from several markets to pick up the slack of demand in Spain. we expect IRRs to increase substantially in emerging solar markets.

6% 12.0% 9.4% 4.4 % 2.8% 10. 4% 2. Barclays Capital research May 01.6% 15.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 35: Comparison of Solar IRRs versus Government Bond Yields 18.7% Greece Israe l Fran ce Ge rmany Bel giu m P ortuga l C zech Re pub lic Swi tze rlan d Australi a S pai n Ital y Sou th Korea 2009 IRRs (at $2.2% 13.00/W AS P) Bond Yi el ds Note: The implied time period varies based on the country’s Feed in Tariff policy.2% 19.8 % 3.2% 4. Source: Bloomberg.7% Germany France 2009 IRRs (at $2. 8% 5.2% Belgium P ort ugal Czech Republic S wi tzerland A ust rali a Bond Yi el ds Spain I taly South Korea Greece I srael 4.9% 6. 1% 9. 7% 9.4% 12.6% 19.4% 6.0 % 4.3% 12.3% 4.3% 4 . 7% 3. 4% 6.2% 17.4 % 4 . 2009 35 . 8% 13. 4% 4. 0% 3. 2% 4.4% 13. 5% 9.0% 4.2% 4.4% 3 .0 % 4 . 4% 8.1% 14. 2% 14.2 % 4.50/W AS P) 20.6% 5 .6% 5. 1% 17.2% 4 . 6% 9.

5% 2011 2 8. 4% 2006 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Source: Barclays Capital research Source: Barclays Capital research 2. and Canada have the potential to emerge as large markets with new incentive program announcements made in 2008–09. U. Japan. 2% 2010 10. China. South Korea. 2009 .1% 2008 7.. 8% 2007 7. Barclays Capita l research Figure 39: Incentives News by Region—2008–09 25 New Incentive in 2008/2009 20 15 10 5 0 G erma ny A str alia u I ndia Rest of Eur ope Re st of t he Wor ld US Source: Country Reports. For perspective. Spain emerged as the fastest growing market when a new law was passed in 2007.3% 2009 15 .8% 2008 12 .S. Greece. Barclays Capita l research 36 May 01. 7% 2011 14.1% 2007 10.7 % 2010 21 . We believe Italy. New incentive programs from 2008–09.1% 2006 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15% 16% 17% 18% Figure 37: Italy IRR Trends 2012 35. Figure 38: New Incentives Announced in 2008 Country Australia South Korea India Greece Israel UAE China Canada Japan France Source: Country Reports.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 36: Germany IRR Trends 2012 16. Global awareness of solar energy is increasing and we see that translate into attractive feed-in tariff in several markets over the next few years. India. We expect new incentive programs announced in several markets in 2008–09 to act as potential major catalysts for demand from 2010.9% 2009 8.

Barclays Capital research Source: Company Reports. Potential resolution of permitting and financing bottlenecks. In general.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 40: Incentives News by Month (2008-–09) 10 Figure 41: Deals by Month (2008–09) 8 6 4 43 2 23 17 11 10 13 20 20 20 26 21 14 7 0 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Jan F eb M arch A pril May June July A ug S ept Oct Nov Dec J n '09 a Source: Company Reports.588 238 73 531 385 329 317 50 31 27 25 10 6 5 4 4 Cz ech Republic 2 J apan 60 Germany US It aly Rest of t he World Spain Franc e Belgium 47 South Korea 28 Japan 11 Greec e 3 Cz ec h Republic US Germ any Spain Rest of the World It al y South Korea Greec e Franc e Belgium Source: Company Reports. How Large Is the Potential Solar Opportunity in the Second Growth Phase? We estimate $200 billion of government spending on gross subsidies in the second growth phase. 2009) 1. 2) type of land required to build solar energy projects.855 Figure 43: Deals by Country (2008–Jan. solar energy project time ranges from nine months to three years. We believe the permitting and financing requirements in several markets could become less stringent and more supportive of demand growth from 2010. Our calculations are based on a what we believe is a conservative May 01. Factors that cause time difference include 1) maturity of solar energy markets—both permitting and financing durations vary significantly among solar markets. Barclays Capital research Source: Company Reports Barcla ys Capital research 3. 2009) 1. 2009 37 . Barclays Capital research Figure 42: Deals by Country ( in MW) 2008–Jan. and 3) type of financing required.

Our scenario analysis does not take into consideration potential upside from solar programs in new markets and possibility of no annual caps in several solar markets. Spain's solar subsidy to represent the bear case scenario and take the average of these to represent the base case scenario. We assume that these governments then put in place an annual cap in each of these markets from stage 2 (2011 in many cases) in order to reduce their subsidy burden and stabilize the growth in the sector. Recall. We see most of the demand coming from U. We use this scenario to calculate the minimum growth of installations during phase 2 of solar industry growth. our demand forecasting framework: subsidy equals customer profit plus solar industry revenue. We assume that $50 billion of the $200 billion incentives constitute profits for end customers and $150 billion constitute solar industry revenue. We calculate the cap for these markets by considering the examples of Germany and Spain and using the metric “Solar subsidy as a percentage of GDP. where we assume that governments take note of the increasing subsidy burden and enforce annual cap on installations. we see at least 5 gigawatts of utility scale market opportunity during the second growth phase. and South Korea meet the caps put in place by their governments for solar installations.” This metric is calculated by using the net present value of subsidies for 2009 installations in Germany and Spain and comparing this metric with the current GDP of Germany and Spain. Figure 44: Net Present Value of Subsidies in Select Solar Markets ($/W) $1 2 $1 0 $8 $6 $4 $2 $0 Netherlands Canada A ustria India Portugal Belgium S w itze and rl Czech Republic A ustrali a Germany S pai n Ialy t Gr eece Israel S outh Kor ea France Source: Barclays Capital research Key assumptions in our subsidy-driven demand forecasting are as follows: We assume governments provide subsidies in three stages.Solar Energy Handbook scenario. utilities with some initial traction from European utilities as well. We assume Germany's solar subsidy as a percentage of GDP to represent the bull case scenario. In addition to the subsidized markets. Italy. 38 May 01.S. We assume that in stage 1 most of the countries such as Greece. 2009 .

0 00 $3 0.50 0 $ 2 .000 8.000 0 S tep 1 Germ any Italy Fran ce Fr ance S tep 2 S outh K orea Spain n i Ida Canada Step 3 Oth er 0 5. 00 0 Ind ia S pa in It aly 30 0 25 0 20 0 15 0 Au str ia I sr ae l Be lgiu m Au str alia Cze ch R ep ub lic Fra nc e 10 0 50 0 $0 $ 50 0 $ 1.000 B ear Bas e B ul l 20.0 00 $ 5 0. 00 0 $1 .000 Source: Barclays Capital research Figure 46: Total Subsidy Amount Allocated by Various Countries 90 00 80 00 70 00 60 00 50 0 45 0 40 0 35 0 G er man y Po rt ug al Ins ta ll at ions (MW ) I nsta ll at ions ( MW) 50 00 40 00 30 00 20 00 10 00 Ca na da 0 $0 S ou th Ko re a G ree c e $1 0. and Netherlands we consider our shipments estimates as the base case. Australia.000 S tep 3 7. Belgium. Switzerland. In our opinion.00 0 Ne the rla nd s Subsi dy ($ M) Source: Barclays Capital research May 01. 00 0 S ubs idy ($ M) $ 40 . For smaller markets such as Austria.000 S tep 1 1. 20% downside to those numbers as the bear case and a 20% upside as the bull case.00 0 25.Solar Energy Handbook Using this metric we arrive at the base case.000 10.000 6. bear case and bull case estimates for the caps put into place by the various governments in stage 2.000 3.000 Me ga wa tts 15. Figure 45: Insta llations Used In Calculating Growth Phase 2 Subsidies 9. 00 0 $2 0 . 2009 39 .000 S tep 2 4. the solar industry would likely reach grid parity by the end of the second growth phase and as such this could potentially represent the maximum amount of subsidy burden for the government. We further assume that governments reduce feed-in tariffs in these markets by 15% in stage 3 after a 15% reduction in stage 2. For stage 3.50 0 $3 .000 M e ga a tts w 5.00 0 $2 .0 0 0 $6 0.000 2. we assume that governments increase installation caps by 15% year over year.

50 0 G ro ss Sub sid y ( $M) $ 2.0 00 $2.00 0 $ 40 . 50 0 Net Subs idy ($ M) Gr os s Su bs idy ( $M) Source: Barclays Capital research In our opinion.0 00 N et Sub sid y ($ M) $1 . Figure 47: Net Present Value of “Gross” and “Net” Subsidies Ca na da Neth er lan ds In dia Aus tria Gr eec e B elgiu m Sp ain Sw itze rla nd Sou th Ko re a Cze ch R ep ub ic l Fr anc e Au st ra ia l Italy Isr ae l Ge rma ny $0 $1 0. a $125 billion cost burden is not that large especially after taking into consideration that it would be shared by more than 12 different countries. As shown in Figure 48. 40 May 01.0 00 $ 50 .00 0 $ 60 .00 0 $ 30 .Solar Energy Handbook How Much Would Subsidies Really Cost? In the previous section. the net solar subsidies as percentage of GDP are significantly less than health care and education spending in all of these countries.0 00 $ 20 . Note that the Figure compares total subsidy cost over three to five years to GDP whereas health care/education spending estimates are for one year only. Although this number seems very large. The bottom line is that we believe the net subsidy burden is insignificant for governments to potentially scale back solar programs. 2009 .10/kWh of traditional fuel costs to be $125 billion during the second growth phase. In our view.00 0 Po rt ug al $0 $ 50 0 $1 . we estimated the gross subsidy burden for all governments during the second growth phase to be $200 billion. we believe a more appropriate number for the government to consider should be “net subsidy burden” which takes into consideration factors such as local fossil fuel generated electricity costs among other things. solar’s job creation potential and the promise of producing electricity at lower prices than natural gas once grid parity is achieved should lead to continued government support during the second growth phase. We estimate the net cost burden of solar subsidies assuming $0.

we believe the proportion of government expenditure on solar was less than 20% of EUR5.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 48: Comparison of Net Subsidy Burden to Health Care and Education Spending 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Germany Italy France So Korea uth Sp n ai Greece Indi a Canada Po rtugal Israel Au stral ia Czech R epubli c Sw tzerl and i Be gium l Net sub sidy % GDP Heal thca re spe ndin g % GDP Education spe nding % GDP Ne t subsidy % GDP ca lcula ted using total subsidy amount ove r growth phase 2. biofuels. etc. etc. value-added tax add up to approximately 36% of German electricity bill.5 billion includes all renewable energy types (wind.100 million).0 billion. subsidy is a lloca ted ove r 20-25 years and real spe nding pe r annum is likely to be 1/20th of the estimate d amount. In addition. 2009 41 .5 billion in 2007 whereas the potential economic benefits of the Renewable Energy Sources Act were estimated to be EUR12.) in electricity prices is only approximately 4% or EUR0. solar. the EUR5. the costs to the electricity consumer resulting from the differential costs of electricity covered by the Renewable Energy Sources Act were estimated to be EUR5. Other sources of taxes such as concession fee. electricity tax. Solar-generated electricity was estimated to be less than 2% of overall renewable electricity in 2007 and based on those estimates. the share of renewable energy (not just solar. In Germany.80/kWh. the monthly extra costs per consumer due to the premium tariff for solar electricity are currently EUR0. N ote. geothermal.). Source: EIA. Barclays Capital research Below we present some details on subsidy burden in Germany. May 01. includes wind.5 billion (or less than EUR1.20. Germany Subsidy Scenario Analysis According to the German Electricity Association. biofuels. More specifically.

We believe the impact of every 1GW increase in shipments on the German electricity bill is about EUR0.1 0. Million) German Electricity Output (Billion. kWh) Feed-in tariff (€/kWh) Replaced fossil fuel costs (€/kWh) Differential costs (€/kWh) Incremental funds (€.10 0.05/kWh.05 42 May 01. assuming solar panel efficiencies decline at 2. 2009 .368 0.5% per annum and assuming a discount rate of 5%.4 38.0 billion.61 325 2006 2675 2.00 46 36 0.0 1100 1.23 95 Analyzing Potential Impact for Every 1GW Increase in Shipments We believe every 1GW increase in solar shipments could result in approximately EUR200 million of incremental annual incentives in Germany. Figure 50: Potential Increase in German Elec tricity Bills for Every 1GW Increase in PV Shipments (2009E) PV Shipments (GW) PV Utilization (Hours) PV Electricity Generation (billion.46 43 33 1.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 49: Annual Solar Incentives in Germany (EUR Millions) 2004 Cumulative Installed Capacity (MW) Solar Electricity Generated (BkWh) Feed-in tariff (€ cents/kW h) Differential cos ts (€ cents /kWh) Incremental Electricity (BkWh) Incentives Burden (EUR MM) Source: Barclays Capital research 2005 1715 1.67 51 41 0. Another way to look at is to understand the potential impact of 1GW increase in shipments on the German electricity bill.268 295 540 0. kWh) Incremental Impact (€/kWh) Source: Barclays Capital estimates 1.28 48.46 1101 900 0. We believe the present value of cash flows over the 20 year period is EUR3.4 0.72 651 2007 4003 3. Our analysis assumes that 1GW of shipments generate 1.1 billion kWh of electricity and our calculation for the potential impact from incentives takes into account the differential costs of solar electricity.

(Billion kW h) Overall elec.8 730 196 2 016 E 3 6. we expect 9.2GW of annual shipments in 2009 and EUR0.19 550 1 .4% 2400 2123 0.8 74 9 20 1 20 15E 36. Figure 52: 2009 Solar Electricity Scenarios (Germany) 2009 Solar El ectricity Scenarios (Germany) Solar elec.8 91 7 24 6 2 026 E 3 6.00 550 1.8 10 15 272 20 22E 36 . In the base case scenario.8 96 5 25 9 2 024 E 36 .8 894 240 20 27E 36.6% of German electricity market and resulting in EUR0.4GW of annual shipments in 2009 and EUR0. MM) Cumulativ e Solar Subsidies in Ele c.8 694 186 201 8E 3 6.39/kWh impact on German electricity bill.8 7 68 2 06 2 014 E 36 . In each of these scenarios.8 9 72 2 34 202 8E 3 6.6% 3660 2643 0.02 4 201 1E 3 6.8 788 211 201 3E 36.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 51: 2009 German Incentive Program: Net Present Value A nalysis for 1GW Shipments 2 009 E 200 9 In centives (ce nts/kWh) Sola r El ectricity (GWh/yr) In cremen ta l fu nds (Eur M) 36 .4% of German electricity generation with 2. we assume that solar electricity represents about 1.8 829 222 $3. 2009 43 . Solar Shipments (M W) Potential Incentives (€. (Billio n kW h) Solar % of overall e lec.8 85 0 22 8 20 10E 36.33/kWh impact on German electricity bill. we have evaluated the impact of incentives on an electricity bill of a German consumer. where solar could potentially become a larger-than-expected proportion of overall electricity generation in 2009. In the bull case scenario.33 May 01.8 1 095 29 3 2 019 E 200 9 In centives (ce nts/kWh) Sola r El ectricity (GWh/yr) In cremen ta l fu nds (Eur M) Net Presen t Val ue of In cremen ta l Fu nds (EUR Mil lio ns) 36 .8 8 08 2 17 20 12E 36 .1% of electricity generation with 1. Bill (€/kWh) Source: Barclays Capital research Base 7.8 6 77 1 81 Source: Barclays Capital research Scenario Analysis for German Electricity Bills We have outlined a few scenarios for solar incentives in Germany.8 10 68 286 20 20E 36.0 billion kWh of solar electricity generated representing about 1.8 9 90 2 65 202 3E 36.45 Bear 6.62 550 1. In the bear case scenario. we assume solar represents 1.39 Bull 9.8 941 252 20 25E 36.45/kWh impact on the German electricity bill.8 71 2 19 1 20 17E 36.1% 1200 1792 0.8 1041 2 79 202 1E 3 6.

Figure 53: Solar System Price versus Natural Gas Price 6000 5000 Solar System Pri ce ($/M W) 4000 3000 2008 N atural Gas Price $5W system cost required to reach grid parity 2000 1000 0 1. forecasts from Barclays Capital commodities and utilities teams suggest.S.3 6.0 2.2 3.0 7.4 2. More importantly.6 7. we are often asked if solar is still a feasible alternative to conventional fossil fuels.5 5. from 2011. As shown in Figure 54..2 8.7 5. we believe grid parity for California utilities is likely by 2011.9 9. 44 May 01.0 Current Natural Gas Price $3/W system cost required to reach grid parity Natural Gas Price ($/MM BTU) 4. solar has the potential to reach grid parity by 2010.1 5. We believe the prospects for solar are still promising and our grid parity outlook has not deteriorated for the following reasons: 1) although we agree that average natural gas electricity prices are likely to decline by nearly 50% year over year in 2009 due to a decline in fuel costs.6 2.S.9 6. 2009 . and 3) we note that several utilities generally purchase renewable energy at a premium to conventional energy using the Market Price Referent (MPR) (which is typically $20/MWh premium to the natural gas generated electricity price) and by applying a Time of Delivery (TOD) multiplying factor. potentially leading to grid parity by 2012 in a scenario where no carbon tax is implemented in the U.8 8. power prices are likely to increase during 2010–15 timeframe. price premium of solar electricity over natural gas electricity is likely to remain constant or even decrease somewhat if module prices decline to $2/W.4 4.4 7.6 4.8 3. 2) if we assume a $15/MWhr carbon tax is implemented in the U.Solar Energy Handbook Growth Phase 3: Solar Investments Post Grid Parity We expect the third growth phase for the solar industry to be characterized by the period from when solar achieves grid parity or the point at which solar electricity price matches fossil fuel generated electricity price.3 Source: Barclays Capital research Given the sharp decline in oil and natural gas prices. assuming PG&E purchases solar using TOD / MPR.5 8.

Grid Parity at Utility Level Several countries generate the bulk of electricity from natural gas and coal. In general. baseload electricity costs are very low. We expect residential markets to have a much higher solar energy price point due to elimination of transmission and distribution costs. is already competitive with intermediate and peak load power requirements. we believe that solar electricity is already competitive with peak power generation capacity in a number of regions. Solar PV in the sunnier locations of Europe. which are mostly coal-based generators. where sunlight totals more than 1.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 54: Grid Parity Timeline 2 50 Power Pr ic es ($/MWh) Solar Pr ic e ($ /MWh) 2 00 Power Pr ic es with Ca rbon Tax ($/MWh) MPR Including TOD ($/MWh) 1 50 $/MWh 1 00 50 0 2 006 2007 20 08 2 009E 201 0E 20 11E 2 012E 201 3E 20 14E 2 015E Source: Barclays Capital research We see two different grid parity price points: 1) grid parity at the utility level. Base-load power generation capacity meets approximately 65% of global electricity demand. run at 100% utilization. In the United States. The common belief is that solar energy is not competitive without government subsidies and would never be used by utilities for large-scale electricity generation. utilities must provide the more expensive intermediate load power using part-time natural gas generators. In fact. when solar economics are the best. several utilities have announced deployment of large scale solar panels from 2010. Approximately 30% of global electricity supply is estimated to be met by intermediate-load generators during the daylight hours. and 2) grid parity at the residential level. 2009 45 . Solar is unlikely to compete with base-load generation capacity anytime soon. May 01. However. We expect grid parity at the utility level to be reached in the 2010–12 time frame depending on the development of fossil fuel generated electricity prices. Because baseload generators. the two grid parity price points are likely to be different—utility price point is likely to be lower than residential price point.800 hours a year.

5 5.0 287.0 128.8 79. 2009 .0 0.9 22.6 0.'10 100 3920 25 35 307 392 7 27.0 140.0 3.5 15.'09 100 100 8000 5600 25 25 35 35 307 307 800 7 56.5 7 7.500 45.500 27.2 0.8 Solar c Si .0 20.5 7 7.0 104.40 140 100% 37.'08 Solar c Si.0 140.5 7.4 73.2 52.5 5.5 15.7 Solar TF .0 0.2 0.6 Source: Barclays Capital research The bottom line is that we see an increasing number of utilities using solar to generate renewable electricity.7 51.9 88.1 Solar c Si .0 0.0 287.0 4.4 89. Cost USD per MWh produced Fuel Costs Fuel Price Heat Rate USD per MWh produced Total Generation Cost Distribution & Transmission Permanent Cost Total Electricity Cost Units MW $ / MW Yrs % GW h $M % $M $ / MW h $ / MW $ / MW h Tons / MWh Metr ic Tons % $ / tn $M $ / MW h $ / MM BTU BTU / MW h $ / MW h $ / MW h $ / MW h $ / MW h $ / MW h CCGT .0 145.40 140 100% 37.8 25.0 20.3 0.5 10.0 145.5 15.6 32.0 0.3 0.5 16.0 20.0 0.3 CCG T @ 25%+ 100 1005 40 40 350 100.4 10.1 2.Now 100 1005 40 40 350 100.2 127.5 7.0 119.6 69. 46 May 01.0 110.5 7.1 2.2 25.5 7 7.0 0.40 140 100% 37.0 0.9 0.0 200.5 15.4 560 7 39.6 10.500 36.0 2.5 5.0 25.2 0.1 0.'08 100 4050 25 35 307 405 7 28.1 2.0 200.5 CCGT @ 25%100 1005 40 40 350 100.3 15.0 0.4 92.0 0.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 55: Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE)—Combined Cycle Gas Plants versus Solar Installed capacity Constr uction cost Plant life Load factor Pr oduction Expected ROCE Required investment Required return Return EUR per MWh Fixed Costs Fixed O&M USD per MWh produced CO2 Costs CO2 Conver sion rate Total emissions % of pass through Pr ice per ton Tot.0 0.9 0.3 15.0 182.3 15.

0 6 9.7 4 7. electricity prices increased at a CAGR of 7%–14% in the past five years in Spain.On 10 0 2 400 20 30 26 3 24 0 7 16 .8 Nuc le ar 1 00 510 0 60 85 7 45 5 10 7 3 5.9 1 2.40 140 10 0% 37.3 15.0 4. average household electricity prices in markets such as Germany were greater than $0.5 15.6 25 .0 45 .80 491 10 0% 37 .5 15. Italy.9 20 .5 15 .0 0.4 80 .1 2 5.0 0 0 1 00% 3 7. According to the EIA’s August 2008 update.2 0.00 0 100 % 37.3 25.7 25 .8 1 3.0 0.0 0 . solar could potentially become competitive well before 2012.0 200 .0 3.8 1 7.5 7 .0 13 8. May 01.8 63 .0 11 9.0 16 0. In Figure 58.0 200 .9 2 2.0 1 50.0 1 55.5 15 .0 Wind .3 0.3 0.0 0. 2009 47 .0 3 .5 15 . we show that based on current grid electricity prices.1 1 15.05–$0.9 30 .0 25.0 1 09.2 52 . and Germany. We believe if electricity prices continue to increase at an historical CAGR in the next five years.0 1 45.50 0 43 .4 7 3.1 0 . grid electricity prices in some of the key solar markets are much more than the average grid electricity prices of $0.500 36.'0 9 Solar TF .5 C oa l 100 27 00 40 70 613 270 7 18 .2 0.Off 100 40 50 20 40 350 405 7 28 .0 0 .10 per kilowatt hour. We expect solar system prices to reach these levels potentially before 2012. Cos t USD per MWh produc ed Fuel Costs Fu el Pric e Hea t Ra te USD per MWh produc ed Total Ge ne ration C os t Distribution & Tra ns mission Perm anent Cost Total Ele ctricity Cost U nits MW $ / MW Y rs % GWh $M % $M $ / MWh $ / MW $ / MWh To ns / MWh Me tri c Ton s % $ / tn $M $ / MWh $ / MM BTU BTU / MWh $ / MWh $ / MWh $ / MWh $ / MWh $ / MWh CC GT 100 10 05 40 40 350 10 0.8 11.8 6.5 1 0. according to the report.8 0.5 0.0 0.9 12 . Furthermore.4 11.3 18.1 2 .3 57 .8 11 .8 79.0 0.7 Wind .Solar Energy Handbook Figure 56: Levelized Cost of Electricity Using Various Technologies (Total Electricity Cost) In sta ll ed cap acity Con stru ction co st Plan t l ife Loa d fa ctor Produ cti on Expecte d ROCE Req uire d inve stm ent Req uire d return Return USD per MWh Fixe d Costs Fi xed O&M USD per MWh produc ed CO 2 Costs CO 2 Con versio n rate To ta l emi ssion s % of pass throu gh Price pe r to n To t.1 0 .0 17 9.4 92 .0 25 .6 12 0.5 18 .1 40 5 7 28 .6 0.5 5 .3 Source: Barclays Capital research Grid Parity in Several Residential Markets before 2012 Is Likely We expect solar to achieve grid parity at $4 system prices likely before 2012.9 0.5 51.0 1 45. solar could achieve grid parity in some of the high-sun-intensity regions of these markets at prices less than $6 per watt.0 20.5 Clea n Coal 1 00 45 00 40 70 6 13 4 50 7 31.5 7 7 .4 30 .0 3 .5 1 5. Another way to think about grid parity is to consider the residential markets.9 0.0 0.25 per kilowatt hour in 2007. As demonstrated in Figure 57.8 Solar c -Si .500 50.5 16 .0 109 .5 0 .2 127 .'09 1 00 10 0 560 0 4 050 25 25 35 35 3 07 30 7 5 60 7 3 9.

$ per W Size of electricity market in TWh/year System Price Forecast 2009: $5.10 $0. C IA countr y files.00 per watt 2015: $2. Barclays Capital Figure 58: Grid Parity in Several Markets Likely Before 2012 Average power price per households. European Photovoltaic Policy Group.2 UK Belgium Czech Republic 6 4 0.15 $0.'06)) Netherlands C zec h Republic 12 % 10 % Greece Portugal Germany It aly Austria Franc e Spain Canada South K orea 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% $$ 0.50 per watt 2012: $3.00 per watt 2010: $4. 2009 .30 2 007 El ectricity Prices ($ce nts/kWh) Source: EIA.25 $0. Public Policy Institute of New York State 48 May 01. McKinsey Global Institute.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 57: Household Electricity Price Trend and Projections In Key Solar Markets 18 % 16 % 14 % Electricity Pri ces C AGR ('01 . $ per kWh 0.20 $0 .mtr/yr) Source: Barclays Capital research. Pacific Gas & Electric.4 Denmark Italy 0.3 Norway Netherlands Ger many Austr ia New Yor k California F inland France Switzerland Canada Gr eece Texas South Korea Cyprus Israel Mexico Spain Portugal Japan Hawaii Australia California Tier 5 California Tier 4 9 Cost per watt at peak hours.50 per watt Sweden 0.1 3 China India 0 500 2 2000 1000 1500 Average I nsolation (kWh/sq.0 5 I ndia USA S witz erland $0.00 per watt 2020: $1.00 per watt 2011: $3.

With a debt/equity ratio of 40%:60%.50 2008 : $6. NJ. we believe solar has the potential to reach grid parity in a number of states over the next three to five years.mtr /yr) Source: EIA.000 $6.00 2011 : $3.0/W $1 . we expect commercial solar returns to be the highest in CA in 2009.50 2012 : $3. 2009 49 Cos t per wa tt at p eak hou rs.30 Hawaii Connect icut $0.000 $8.0/W $6. Grid parity timeframe in various states: We expect commercial projects to generate competitive returns in 2009 (8%–10% IRRs assuming ITC.S.000 $0 MO IN ND WA ID WV NC AS FL UT PA WI LA IL NB SC AL MS IA VA MT AK AR GA MI MN OH KY WY SD TN NM OR AZ MA CO DE OK VT KS NH ME MD TX DC NJ NY CA CT NV RI HI 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 pre 2008 Source: Barclays Capital research May 01. Figure 59: Commercial Solar Grid Parity Timeline $0.000 $7.000 $10.00 per per per per per per watt watt watt watt watt watt Si ze of el ectricity ma rket in T Wh /year $2. no state incentives) in TX.00 2009 : $5. $ per W Averag e p ower p rice.Solar Energy Handbook Grid Parity in the U. Grid parity in the U.: We examine grid parity price points assuming commercial solar projects offer 8% to 10% IRRs in the U. Without state incentives.000 $4.0 /W $3. 7% interest rate. Taking CA state incentives into consideration. $ pe r kW h . Barclays Capital research Figure 60: Commercial Solar Grid Parity Timeline $12.0/W $0.000 $11.5/W $0. and 30% ITC. NY.000 $1.000 $9. and HI.000 $2.00 1000 1300 1600 1900 2200 Averag e Inso lation (kW h/sq.000 $5. DC.000 $3.00 2010 : $4. we expect four more states to generate competitive commercial project returns in 2010. Market We believe that solar has the potential to reach grid parity in a number of states over the next three to five years.20 New York New Jersey Alaska Massachuset ts Delaware Pennsylvania M ichigan Wisconsin Ohio M ai ne M aryland G eorgia Illinois Nort h Carol ina I daho Nort h Dakota Nebraska Utah K ansas A rizona F lori da Oklahom a Colorado NM Cali fornia Nevada Texas $7.S.10 System Price F orecast 2007 : $6.S.0 /W $5.

First. In the silicon space where there is only gradual efficiency improvement. we see innovation leading to increased technology and therefore cost differentiation. We continue to see room for both silicon and thin film technologies and. in our view. Over time. at this point. we see a shift in the bargaining power in the solar value chain. Not everyone can or will get there. the capital intensity of poly suppliers is highest among all industry participants. Consequently. The companies that can successfully reduce costs and improve efficiency stand to dominate the solar sector. we believe the winning formula for success would be a combination of SunPower's high efficiency technology and First Solar's low cost structure. We believe solar companies with scale and a strong balance sheet are likely to receive more favorable terms from their suppliers compared to smaller tier 2 solar players. think about Applied Materials and First Solar. as new entrants from China bring additional silicon supply on-stream. the bargaining power has been with the silicon suppliers. we believe market share will play an important role in cost differentiation. In addition to economies of scale. Anyone who thinks that solar companies are relatively undifferentiated should. in our opinion. we see the ability to access low-cost silicon being influenced by market share. Now let's think about a scenario where First Solar executes to its 12% efficiency target and SunPower reduces costs by 50%. we see a greater need for poly suppliers and their solar partners to access capital markets for new capex or for pre-payments. Simply put. 50 May 01.Solar Energy Handbook Screening Potential Long-Term Winners So which companies do we believe stand to win in the long run? The common view is that solar is a commodity with relatively low barriers to entry. we see First Solar as being the lowest-cost thin film solution. How many successful thin film companies besides First Solar have we seen so far? Why is the world not producing solar cells in volume production for unsubsidized markets when the semiconductor industry has figured out a way to mass produce 45nm products? Why is everyone skeptical of Applied Materials’ ability to lower costs and improve efficiency? The bottom line is that efficiency improvement requires major breakthroughs. Second. 2009 . We expect two long-term trends to potentially influence solar industry development. we see competitive dynamics and changing industry landscape leading to increased cost differentiation. Our view is that barriers to entry are low for high cost/low efficiency panels—it is relatively easy to make an undifferentiated product for the incentive markets where IRRs are still very attractive. In our view. until recently. For instance.

we believe barriers to entry in the mid-stream segment are likely to increase. we believe access to low-cost supply will be the primary challenge.to 25-year warranties and financial stability would likely be the key focus for several large downstream installers. downstream players are likely to require greater reward for taking the same risk in an uncertain supply/demand environment. On the other hand. 2009 51 . Module manufacturers provide 20. As more companies learn to make silicon. First.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 61: Silicon-Based Solar Industry Competitive Dynamics Solar Value Chain Profitability Strong supplier Weak supplier NOW Downstream Downs tream Midstream FUTURE Downstream Downs tream NOW Midstream Strong customer FUTURE Upstream Weak c ustomer Ups tream Source: Barclays Capital research Although we are not saying it is easy to make silicon. we believe the barriers to entry in silicon business are decreasing. Over time we expect the knowledge pool of silicon industry to increase. Until the emergence of the solar industry. the silicon industry was a fairly concentrated industry with manufacturing only in about five locations. Second. May 01. we see decreasing barriers to entry in the silicon industry.

we see two long-term trends shaping the siliconbased solar sector: 1) we see a profitability shift from upstream to midstream. 2) within midstream. 2009 .Solar Energy Handbook Figure 62: Conversion Efficiency and Cost Trends Europe Solar Tier 2 Increasing costs China Solar Tier 2 Chin a Solar Tier 1 Europe Solar Tier 1 SunPow er A MA T Thin Film First Solar Next Gen Solar Increasing Efficiency Source: Barclays Capital research If our industry outlook proves to be correct. we see a wide range of margins—companies with scale should enjoy aboveaverage margins and tier 2 companies should have weak margins due to high poly cost and lower ASPs. Figure 63: Solar Market Share versus Margins Increasing market share Increasing market share Decreasing market share Upstream Midstream Down stream Lo Hi Differential margins Lo Hi Source: Barclays Capital research 52 May 01.

although overall industry profitability should improve. We believe the following factors should result in gross margin expansion for midstream players in the intermediate term: 1) a more than 50% decline in polysilicon and raw material costs. Figure 64: Solar Industry Competitive Analysis JA Solar Yingli Suntech Low non-silicon costs Chin a Sunergy Solarf un Trina Solar SunPow er Evergreen Solar REC Solarw orld Q-Cells Be neficiary of Abundant Polysilicon Supply Source: Barclays Capital research Long-Term Industry Profitability Outlook In our opinion. We expect a redistribution of profits from upstream to midstream and downstream. we see the potential opportunity for fully vertically integrated companies to emerge as long-term winners. However. increased competition in a grid parity and abundant silicon supply scenario should result in declining overall profitability. solar industry profits should continue to increase as the industry revenue pool increases and as overall costs decline due to technology improvements and economies of scale. enabling gross margin expansion for some leading solar cell/module manufacturers. 2009 53 . In other words. we expect profits per installed capacity to decrease in the long run such that the industry leaders achieve return in excess of cost of capital. Although we like vertically integrated companies. we believe companies focused on the capital intensive polysilicon manufacturing segment may be unable to scale rapidly enough compared with companies focused on cell and module manufacturing. we expect costs to decline faster than ASPs. In the long run when companies start generating free cash flow. Within the midstream segment. 2) lower silicon consumption per cell because of greater silicon efficiency by May 01.Solar Energy Handbook Our focus would be on companies that are well positioned to increase scale—we believe that companies that can scale rapidly without sufficient need for growth capital are likely to emerge as long-term winners.

45 $1. 2009 .28 Cells $0.95 Total Normalized Industry Profits ($/W) Price $0.19 Modules $1. 3) about 2% improvement in cell efficiencies.10 $0. tier 3 sola r companies). and 2) relatively small size operations (tier 2. only the tier 1 silicon-based solar companies with economies of scale (and First Solar) are likely to generate returns greater than cost of capital.40 $0.07 $0.11 $0.28 Insatllers $1.98 Gross Margin 20% 15% 10% 5% 15% Note: Normalized Profits model assume poly price of $40/kg and 8g/W silicon consumption Source: Barclays Capital research We calculate the ROIC of cell and module manufacturer in two scenarios: 1) large economies of scale (mostly the case for tier 1 solar companies).80 $0. Similarly.40 $0. and 4) production efficiencies driven by economies of scale and improved manufacturing methods. we expect the normalized ROIC to decrease from over 40% currently to about 8%. we believe ROIC of tier 2 module manufacturers is likely to decrease to roughly (1%) in the long term. For tier 1integrated module manufacturers.32 NA Wafers $0.60 $0. roughly equal to the cost of capital. net working capital requirements.Solar Energy Handbook cell manufacturers. Assuming no difference in gross margins and higher operating expenses. Figure 65: Normalized Industry Profits Pool $/W Input Cost Processing Polysilicon $0.12 $0. 54 May 01.45 $4.10 $1. We believe the current industry profits are still well above the normalized industry profits of $1/W.08 $0.00 Profits $0. resulting in about 600 basis points of gross margin expansion on constant ASPs.80 $1. Return on Invested Capital Analysis We believe as the solar industry profits move toward the normalized $1/W profits. we believe ROIC of tier 1 cell manufacturers is likely to decrease to about 16% from over 50% currently whereas ROIC of tier 2 cell manufacturers is likely to decrease to about 4% in the long term.

00 -0.09 0.03 0.55 1.50 16.9% May 01.07 0.10 0.40 0.00 1.40 0.11 0.4% 0.08 0.02 0.38 0. Module ASP ($/W) Module Cost ($/W) Gross Profit ($/W) Opex ($/W) Operating Profit ($/W) Taxes ($/W) Return ($/W) Invested Capital Net Work ing Capital ($/W) Net Operating Fixed Assets ($/W) Operating Invested Capital ($/W) ROIC Source: Barclays Capital research Current 3.50 0.60 1.9% Figure 67: ROIC Integ rated Cell Manufacturer – Current vs.70 51.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 66: ROIC Integ rated Module Manufacturer – Current versus Normalized Integrated Module Mfg.04 0.10 0.06 0.99 0.25 0.36 Normalized Tier 1 1.50 0.47 Normalized Tier 1 1.01 0.01 0.05 0. Normalized Integrated Cell Mfg.45 1.40 0.60 0.08 0.45 0. 2009 55 .70 3.10 0.00 0.52 0.01 0.08 Normalized Tier 2 1.45 1.30 0.05 Normalized Tier 2 1.99 0. Cell ASP ($/W) Cell Cost ($/W) Gross Profit ($/W) Opex ($/W) Operating Profit ($/W) Taxes ($/W) Return ($/W) Invested Capital Net Work ing Capital ($/W) Net Operating Fixed Assets ($/W) Operating Invested Capital ($/W) ROIC Source: Barclays Capital research Current 2.11 0.03 0.5% 0.25 0.2% 0.38 0.25 0.07 0.08 -0.40 0.01 0.01 0.65 8.50 0.00 2.3% 0.40 0.30 0.00 -0.10 42.

20 1.8% 0.40 0. Polysilicon Manufacturers Normalized ENER 1.48 0.00 2. 2009 .32 1.01 0.30 0.05 0.00 0.68 0.90 1.0% 0.50 1.10 0.10 0.08 0.50 3.40 1.02 Module ASP ($/W) Module Cost ($/W ) Gross Profit ($/W) Opex ($/W ) Operating Profit ($/W ) Taxes ($/W) Return ($/W) Invested Capital Net Working Capital ($/W) Net Operating Fixed Assets ($/W ) Operating Invested Capital ($/W) ROIC Source: Barclays Capital research 0.70 0.03 0.04 Normalized FSLR 1.05 0.44 1.30 1.32 0.00 0.70 1.50 0.05 0.00 51.20 53.00 1.6% 56 May 01.00 0.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 68: Normalized ROIC: Thin Film.00 1.04 Normalized 0.30 0.04 0.20 0. Poly ASP ($/W) Poly Cost ($/W ) Gross Profit ($/W ) Opex ($/W ) Operating Profit ($/W) Taxes ($/W ) Return ($/W ) Invested Capital Net W orking Capital ($/W ) Net Operating Fixed Assets ($/W ) Operating Invested Capital ($/W ) ROIC Current 2.3% 1.16 Poly Mfg.40 0.

Solar Energy Handbook Cash Is King in Solar In our view. the silicon-based solar players have raised $10.8 00 Prep ayme nts a nd/or Othe r Uses ($M) Source: Company data. We believe companies with access to capital should be better positioned to enter into strategic partnerships and/or make equity investments in return for low cost reliable supply. Bar clays Capital research What if the solar industry used fully depreciated equipment? Unlike the semiconductor industry. May 01. access to capital is likely to emerge as the most important differentiating factor for solar companies. Most silicon-based solar companies raise capital for two purposes— silicon pre-payments and capex. Most of the technological improvements within the solar industry occur at the cell level (in the form of improved conversion efficiency) and these changes do not necessarily require a change in the equipment sets. 2009 57 . we believe these technologies that reduce silicon consumption may not necessarily have the same competitive advantage to warrant high capex investments in a low cost environment. we assume the solar industry can continue to use fully depreciated equipment to make solar products without really changing the manufacturing economics. Figure 69: Prepayments and Capex Breakdown CSUN C SIQ SO LF T SL SO L ENER YGE SPWR ESLR JASO F SLR STP $0 $20 0 $ 400 $6 00 Cap ex ($ M) $80 0 $1 .2 00 $ 1.600 $1 .1 billion of capital so far. As shown in Figure 69. lower breakage rate are likely to be developed and used. Consequently. of which 46% has been dedicated toward polysilicon prepayments and the remainder for capex investments. Although new technologies such as improved automation.400 $ 1.0 00 $1 . which is driven by Moore’s Law. the solar industry does not require any changes to manufacturing equipment sets over intermediate periods.

Polysilicon Industry Perhaps Represents the Closest to the DRAM Industry In our view. We believe this competitive dynamic is likely to result in significant polysilicon price declines. 4. Capital intensity of DRAM industry is twice that of solar industry. just as we have observed in the DRAM industry in the prior cycles. We believe the solar industry is different from DRAM for the following reasons: 1. 2009 . 3. 2) relatively low technology barriers to entry. solar industry has pricing floor. polysilicon manufacturers are likely to continue to run factories at nearly full utilization rates as long as the polysilicon price is greater than marginal cost. 3) low-cost manufacturing as the key differentiating factor among companies. No Moore’s Law within solar industry—where is the need for replacement capex every few years? Within Solar Industry Value Chain. DRAM industry has no pricing floor. 58 May 01. 5. Fixed costs for DRAM manufacturers are high whereas fixed costs for solar companies are low. 2. We believe due to the relatively high fixed cost structure. there is a high level of similarity between the polysilicon industry and the DRAM industry as both industries are characterized by high capital intensity levels. Solar industry revenue pool is growing whereas DRAM industry revenue pool is shrinking.Solar Energy Handbook DRAM versus Solar—Shrinking Revenue Pool versus Rising Revenue Pool The solar industry is often compared with the DRAM industry—common comparisons include 1) commodity nature of both DRAM and solar industry.

2009 59 .Solar Energy Handbook Chapter 2: Solar Background May 01.

1. the photovoltaic (PV) solar industry has emerged from being a niche cottage industry to a commercially viable stand-alone industry. 3 % B iopow er.00 % R enewa bles 18 % Coal. During the corresponding period. 7% Ge ot hermal. making the prospects of achieving grid parity brighter in some regions. Electricity Generation Mix N uc le ar. 16 . 2009 . Although the solar PV would be insignificant compared with the more than $1 trillion global electricity market today. 0 . we expect solar PV demand growth (in the form of new installations) to accelerate further. 50 % Sola r & Wind.40 % B iopowe r. Solar Contributes Less Than 1% of Global Electricity Generation Despite the robust secular growth over the last decade.9GW in 2008.3 5% G eot he rmal. Barclays Capital 60 May 01.40 % Re new able s 8. solar PV module prices have declined from roughly $11 per watt to about $4 per watt. 20 % Na tural Ga s. our top-down scenario analysis suggests that the potential upside to our 2012 forecast would be a factor of 2x– 3x if the industry cost reductions accelerate.Solar Energy Handbook Robust Secular Growth Story Over the past decade. solar PV demand is highly elastic and if the pace of cost reductions continues. 0 . 7% Hy droe lec tric . 19 % Source: EIA.30 % Nat ura l G as. 6. 1 9% Coa l.1% of the global electricity generated in 2008. 50 % Sola r & W ind. primarily due to the efforts and programs of governments of Germany and Japan.4 5% Oi l. In our view. Figure 70: Global Electricity Genera tion Mix Nucl ear. solar PV electricity accounted for only about 0. 1 .S. Barclays Capital Source: EIA. Worldwide solar PV installations have grown at a 32% annual rate from about 80MW in 1995 to approximately 5. 0. 36 % O il. 4 0% Hydroe lec tric. 15% Figure 71: U. 0 .

Barclays Capital research May 01.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 72: Cumulative Ins talled Capacity (2008) ROW 23% Japan 12% Figure 73: New Solar PV Ins tallations (2008) Germany 27% US 7% Germany 38% Spain 45% ROE 9% Spain 20% ROW 9% Japan 4% USA 6% Source: Solarbuzz. Barclays Capital research Source: Solarbuzz. 2009 61 .

solar demand is driven by favorable economics resulting from two equally important factors: 1) government incentives. In markets such as the U. 2009 .. Government Incentives Should Continue to Grow. The incentives typically take the form of preferential feed-in tariffs/net metering (where the utilities buy PV electricity from the producer at a certain guaranteed rate). Below. End user/installer does not pay sales tax on purchase of solar systems. in Our View Government incentives in Germany. ta x rebates. End user is charged only for the net amount of energy used from the utility grid. Net metering is calculated as energy used from the grid less energy generated from a solar system. investment subsidies (where the government refunds part of system installation costs). investment subsidies (where the government refunds part of system installa tion costs).S. Net Metering.Solar Energy Handbook Solar Demand Outlook What drives solar demand? In our view. Capital Cost Rebates. We believe Government incentives are still the primary demand driver for solar energy as the unsubsidized cost of solar electricity is significantly greater than the cost of fossil fuel electricity. and R&D support are common. We believe the role of incentives is to make current solar photovoltaic (PV) costs competitive with fossil electricity costs in order to achieve economies of scale necessary to drive down solar PV costs. tax rebates. and 2) continued cost reductions. and R&D support. End user/installer receives a cash rebate on the initial solar panel system cost. The most commonly used incentives include preferential feed-in tariffs and net metering (by which the utilities buy PV electricity from the producer at a certain guaranteed rate). and the United States should be the main growth drivers. we highlight some of the common incentive programs: Feed-in Tariffs. Tax Credits. Spain. 62 May 01. Utilities pay customers a guaranteed rate typically for 20–25 years for the amount of solar electricity generated by the solar power system.

0 6. 2009 63 .9 Min imum Co st ($ c/kWh ) Ma xi m m Cos t ($ c/kWh ) u Source: Industr y sources. Since the costs of solar electricity are currently high. solar electricity in Spain costs $0.5 N atu ra l Gas 4.0 Ge o th e rma l 4. But this is still far too high to make solar energy broadly viable. Consequently.0 Co a l 4 . For instance.0 30 . Figure 75: Costs of Various Sources of Energy So lar 1 5 . we expect an increasing number of governments to look at solar as a potentially attractive source of renewable electricity.36/kWh.0 N uc le ar 11 .15 to $0. As the industry drives down costs over the next three to five years.0 40 .26/kWh whereas in Germany it costs $0. May 01.Solar Energy Handbook Role of Government Incentives Figure 74: Solar Subsidy Demand Relationship ion ct du Re st Co Hi gh De m an d Solar Demand Drivers Go vern ment Sup port Source: Barclays Capital research Continued Cost Reductions The price of solar electricity has been declining over time—in 1976 it was about $2. we believe continued cost reduction is likely to be one of the most significant growth drivers for the industry over the next three to five years. and today it is $0.1 1 4 .5 Hy d ro ele c tr ic 5 .8 5 .40 per kilowatt-hour.1 1 1.4 4 . Barclays Capital research The price of solar electricity is largely dependent upon location.3 Win d 4.00 per kilowatt-hour. demand is mainly driven by government incentives in a few countries (which we discuss in greater detail in the next few sections) that are aimed at generating economies of scale.

35 $0.40 $0.05 $0.20 $0.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 76: Solar Electricity Costs ($/kWh) in Key Regions $0. MTR IMPROVEMENT Cell Efficiency Improvement Source: Barclays Capital research 64 May 01.mtr) 2 012 solar c ost Germany Italy Japan Spain California 1900 2200 Source: Barclays Capital research Two main factors are driving the high cost of solar electricity: 1) low rates of efficiency of solar cells. MTR COST/ SQ. 2009 .15 $0.30 Re tail ele c. MTR REDUCTION Economies of Scale Competition Wafer Price Reduction Wafer Thickness Reduction Automation Next Generation Technologies WATT/ SQ. and 2) the high cost of the substrate material being used. Figure 77: Key Cost Per Watt Reduction Drivers COST COST WATT = SQ. the solar PV supply chain is focused on improving the cost of solar electricity by increasing watt/m2 (or cell efficiency) and decreasing cost/m2 (manufacturing costs).00 1000 1300 1600 Annua l Insolation (kWh/sq.25 $0. MTR WATT SQ. As we explain in detail in the next few sections of the report. cost 20 07 solar cost $0.10 $0.

7 sq. Multi-crystalline cells are lower in cost to manufa cture.000W/sq. the disadvantage is lower conversion efficiency (6% to 11%) and lack of proven manufacturing technology. air mass=1. C. Thin film solar panels represent less than 10% of solar PV cells manufactured today. 10 sq. however. m tr. mtr app. 8 sq mtr Cell Efficiency at STC* Module Efficiency Area needed per kWp** (f or modules) Source: EPIA *: Standard Testing Co nditions – 25 deg. they are likely to grow rapidly to represent almost 20% of solar cells over the next three to five years.Solar Energy Handbook Main Types of Solar PV Technologies There are two main types of solar PV technologies: crystalline silicon and thin film silicon. There are two main types of crystalline silicon cells: mono-crystalline and multi-crystalline. Crystalline Silicon About 90% of solar cells manufactured today are crystalline silicon-based solar cells. light intensity of 1. Each of these technologies has distinct advantages and disadvantages. Thin film solar panels are manufactured by depositing a layer of semiconductor/non-semiconductor material on glass or other flexible substrate. mtr 12 sq. solar products are rated by the power they generate at S tandard Testing Conditions May 01. The advantage of crystalline silicon cells is high conversion efficiency (about 14%–21%) and proven high volume manufacturing processes. their manufacturing cost is higher. Thin Film Thin film technology is a relatively new next generation solar PV technology that has the potential to grow faster than conventional solar technology. 2009 65 . The main advantage in the thin film approach is the elimination of the use of expensive polysilicon. however. much like those used in semiconductor manufacturing. Mono-crysta lline cells are more efficient in the conversion of sunlight into electricity. mtr 11 sq mtr . These cells use silicon wafers as the raw material. mtr Multicrystalline 14-15% 12-14% app.5 ** kWp=kilowatt peak. Figure 78: Module and Cell Efficiencies—Crystalline versus Thin Film Solar Technologies Technology Thin Film Amorphous Cadmium Silicon (a-Si) Telluride (CdTe) 6-7% 8-10% Crystalline Wafer Based CIS a-Si/m-Si Monocrystalline 16-17% 10-11% 8% 13-15% 15 sq. however. but they are less efficient than mono-crysta lline cells.

Bar clays Capital research Figure 80: Comparison of Thin Film Technologies Effic ie nc y Cost Ability to Sca le Ca pital Costs Substra te Amorphous Silicon .Solyndra TH ERMAL EXPLOR ATION Strong/ Positive Source: Company Reports.N anosolar .Shar p .trough S TE Thin-film PV Tidal & riv er turbines Silicon PV Cofired biom ass Nano-s tr uctured PV Direct-fired biomass Onshor e wind Hydro Time Source: Electric Power Research Institute.U nisolar .Solar Energy Handbook Figure 79: Life Cycle Positions of Alternative Energy Technologies Research Development Demonstration Deployment Mature Technology Dish-Stirling STE Anticipated Cos t of Full-Scale A pplic ation B iomass gasification Wave Concentrating P V Central receiver STE Geother mal Offshore wind Parabolic. Barclays Capital research Weak/ Negative 66 May 01. 2009 .Mias ole .Fir st Solar CIGS .K aneka C admium Tellur ide .

This is the most common process used for lab level CIGS cell manufacturing. Figure 81: CIGS Technology Matrix Process Technology Control / Process F lexibility High Vol Mf g Technology High Throughput No Hazardous Waste Uniformity Batch / Continuous SPUTTERING √ √ √ √ √ Continuous ELECTROPLATING √ Batch NANO-PARTICLE PRINTING Batch THERMAL EXPLORATIO N √ √ √ Batc h Source: Industr y sources.Solar Energy Handbook Thin Film Technology—CIGS CIGS or copper indium gallium de-selenide appears to be the most promising technology in terms of efficiency and cost improvement. However. However. The advantage of this process is that this is a proven process technology on industrial scale for other applications. formulating and constantly maintaining the right ink mix can be very expensive and is often the most challenging step. this process can result in very uneven deposition (causing lower efficiency and higher material loss). base materials are vaporized and gradually deposited onto the cell substrate. Although the process seems very easy. Sputtering: In our view. this is the most technically challenging process after nano-particle printing as it involves high temperatures and a vacuum environment. Nano-particle printing could result in very uneven deposition of CIGS materials and results in lower efficiency. large scale volume production has been challenging due to the complexity involved in the layering and mixing of the different CIGS components to make cells. There are currently four techniques for the deposition of CIGS material onto a cell: Electroplating: An electrically charged cell is dipped in a CIGS solution which is of the opposite charge. Nano-particle printing: Ink solution with nano-particles of CIGS composites is printed using ink-jet printer like technology onto the cell. Barclays Capital research May 01. 2009 67 . We believe sputtering has the potential to achieve the highest throughput and lowest material loss of all the processes. Uniform deposition is difficult for larger substrates making scaling a challenge. Thermal evaporation: In this process.

glass. such as wristwatches and calculators. known as the Staebler-Wronski effect. it is able to provide comparable efficiency levels. Thus. Employing a-Si thin-film does present some challenges. well below the 14%–16% levels of crystalline silicon. and better module packaging to make the material less susceptible to glass breakage or moisture ingress in outdoor environments. Now. Although output gradually stabilizes. The main disadvantage with this technology is that module efficiencies are typically between 6% and 8%. Multi-junction designs can help to lessen this effect. In the early 1970s. CdTe cells are also less affected than traditional silicon based cells. scientists found a use for a-Si in PV technology by controlling the conditions under which it is deposited and carefully modifying its composition. and a growing number of others. by cell temperature increases. consequently. Thin Film Technologies—Cadmium Telluride CdTe is a stable and inert semiconductor made from cadmium and telluride which are byproducts of mining and the production of metals such as zinc and copper. Sharp. Current layers in the amorphous silicon market include Energy Conversion Devices. while it uses about 1% of the semiconductor material used generally. These can also be mitigated by the encapsulation of the modules. The material has long been popular in small consumer devices with low power requirements. 68 May 01. CdTe has been recognized by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to have the potential for achieving the lowest production costs among thin film technologies. Elemental Cadmium and certain of its compounds are considered hazardous and regulated but the risks of exposure from CdTe are not considered as serious as those from elemental Cadmium. a faster rate of material deposition. a better understanding of certain unique a-Si characteristics make it appealing for solar electric systems and today is the leading thin-film PV material. losses of 20% can occur before this happens. It can also be produced at lower temperatures and deposited on inexpensive substrates such as plastic. ersol Thin-Film. Schott Solar. causes conversion efficiency to decrease considerably during initial exposure to sunlight. The mechanism of degradation. CdTe is a direct bandgap semiconductor and is thus able to more efficiently convert solar energy into electricity than indirect bandgap semiconductors. and metal. The main advantage of this technology is that amorphous silicon absorbs solar radiation 40 times more efficiently than traditional crystalline silicon and. only a 1-micron thick layer needs to be deposited as compared with about 200-micron thick layers in the case of crystalline silicon.Solar Energy Handbook Thin Film Technology—Amorphous Silicon Layers of amorphous silicon are deposited as light-absorbing materials on rigid or flexible substrates instead of traditional crystalline silicon layers. as can capital equipment reduction. Instability is arguably the biggest obstacle. 2009 . United Solar Systems.

2009 69 .Solar Energy Handbook Chapter 3: How to Screen Solar Stocks May 01.

levelized cost of energy (LCOE) (which is dependent on both overall cost structure (module cost/W) and balance of systems cost requirements) is likely to be important in determining relative fundamental performance of solar companies. First Solar. Cost Structure (20%): In our opinion. Yingli. Germany and Italy are likely to see relatively strong shipments growth. We use ROE and ROIC to rate companies. LCOE and Balance of Systems costs are important in determining relative fundamental performance. We like companies with strong access to downstream channels. We prefer companies with strong access to capital. Product Differentiation (10%) Companies with differentiated products (low cost. In our opinion. 70 May 01. Energy Conversion Devices. Trina Solar. We believe over the next 12 to 18 months. 4) product differentiation. and Energy Conversion Devices have differentiated product offerings followed by China Sunergy. We base our ratings by examining R&D expenses and historical track record on technology roadmap execution. Companies with differentiated products are likely to experience strong fundamentals. JA Solar and China Sunergy have the most scalable business models followed by First Solar and SunPower. First Solar and MEMC have relatively strong balance sheets followed by SunPower. high efficiency. We prefer companies with high exposure to the spot poly market. 3) control of downstream channels. and ROIC to rate companies. in our view. To that extent. JA Solar. Control of Downstream Channels (15%): We believe companies with strong access to downstream channels in key growth markets such as the U. In our opinion. we use non-silicon costs as the basis for our screening methodology. potential to fund near term capacity expansion plans. Balance Sheet (20%): We base our balance sheet rating on available cash position. Yingli. We prefer companies with well defined technology roadmaps to improve costs. Technology Roadmap (10%): Companies that have well-defined technology roadmap to improve conversion efficiencies/costs are likely to show relative fundamental outperformance. We believe scalable business models are important to gain market share. bala nce sheet strength could potentially emerge as the most powerful differentiator for companies as customers/financial institutions seek to minimize warranty risks. 2) cost structure. we expect companies with high exposure to the spot market to outperform thin film companies. MEMC. In our opinion. First Solar. SunPower. Scalability (10%): We believe scalable business models are important to gain market share and reduce costs through economies of scale. Financial Metrics (5%) We use operating margins. In our opinion. and Trina Solar. ROE. MEMC and China Sunergy screen favorably on this metric.S. 2009 . First Solar and MEMC screen as companies with top financial metrics. First Solar. 6) poly advantage. SunPower. and 8) financial metrics. and JA Solar screen as top companies in our coverage universe. and China Sunergy screen favorably on this metric. convertible debt (if any) repayment schedule. For our cost structure analysis. SunPower has relatively strong control of downstream channels. 7) scalability. Poly Advantage (10%): As spot poly prices continue to decline.Solar Energy Handbook Solar Stocks Are Volatile and Tend to Trade More on Sentiment than on Fundamentals We believe the following eight metrics (in order of importance) are likely to play a key role in determining relative fundamental performance of solar companies: 1) balance sheet. debt/equity ratios. In our opinion.. 5) technology roadmap. and our forecasts for free cash flow. followed by First Solar. BIPV) are likely to experience relatively strong fundamentals in our view.

Solar Energy Handbook Figure 82: Using Stock Screening Methodology for Coverage Stocks FSLR Balance Sheet SP WR WFR YGE JASO TSL STP CSUN ENER ESLR LDK CSIQ SOL SOLF Cost Structur e Downstr eam Differentiation Technology Roadmap Pol y Advantage Scal abi lity Financial M etrics Overall Screen Strong Weak Source: Barclays Capital May 01. 2009 71 .

1= weak.90 2-EW SOL 1 3 1 1 1 4 1 4 1.10 3-UW SOLF 1 3 1 1 1 4 3 1 1.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 83: Using Stock Screening Methodology for Coverage Stocks 2-EW FSLR 5 5 4 5 5 1 4 5 4.45 1-OW JASO 3 5 1 3 3 4 5 3 3. 2009 .00 1-OW WFR 5 5 1 5 5 1 1 5 3. Scale from 1 to 5.85 2-EW ESLR 1 3 3 4 4 1 1 1 2.30 2-EW LDK 1 3 1 3 1 4 3 4 2.25 3-UW CSIQ 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 2.05 3-UW STP 1 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 3.90 3-UW ENER 3 3 3 5 3 1 1 4 2. 5 = Strong 72 May 01.40 2-EW TSL 3 3 3 1 3 5 3 4 3.35 2-EW SPWR 4 3 5 5 5 2 4 5 4.00 Balance Sheet Cost structure Downstream Differentiation Tec hnology roadmap Poly advantage Scalability Financial metric s Overall screen 20% 20% 15% 10% 10% 10% 10% 5% 100% Balance Sheet Cost structure Downstream Differentiation Tec hnology roadmap Poly advantage Scalability Financial metric s Overall screen 20% 20% 15% 10% 10% 10% 10% 5% 100% 2-EW CSUN 1 3 1 4 5 5 5 1 2.60 1-OW YGE 1 5 3 4 3 5 4 4 3.85 Source: Barclays Capital Research.

Next-generation technology risks: The mainstream solar cell manufacturing technology today is based on crystalline silicon and there is extensive development work on next generation technologies that consume significantly less silicon. A continuation of a global economic slowdown and general tightening of credit markets could significantly impact demand. Any reduction in government subsidies is likely to cause a big impact on adoption of solar PV technology. electricity generated from la rge-scale wind energy fa rms today costs between $0. successful transition to high volume manufacturing at improved efficiency rates remains the key risk factor. and solar thermal energy if cost reduction efforts in other renewable sources gain momentum. In addition to solar module cost reductions and government incentives. making wind energy a more attractive option for large-scale industrial/utility electricity generation.. Spain. and Germany are likely to be important demand drivers. Wind. 2009 73 Successful development of alternative technologies could result in significa ntly lower demand for c-Si solar cells. Government subsidies are important as the cost of unsubsidized solar electricity is still two to five times higher than conventional electricity and greater volumes or “economies of scale” are necessary to lower the cost of solar electricity. inverters. and storage.. Although most solar manufacturers have been able to improve cell efficiency levels for small volume applications. For instance. Large scale efficiency improvement remains key challenge. Government subsidies in key solar markets: Solar PV demand is highly elastic and is currently largely dependent on government incentives in key solar markets such as Germany.S.Solar Energy Handbook Key Risk Factors Incentives in the U. . geothermal. Global economic slowdown and tighter credit markets: Solar PV market is very much dependent on global economic conditions and the availability of relatively affordable financing. driving economies of scale. geothermal: We believe solar PV energy holds the promise of being the most widely used form of distributed renewable energy source over the next few years. Housing market slowdown and tightening of credit markets could significantly impact demand.S. geothermal. we believe availability of well-trained system installers and cost reduction of the balance of system components is equally important for the development of the solar market. U. May 01.06/kWh.03 and $0. Successful development of any of these alternative technologies could potentially result in significantly lower demand for crystalline silicon based manufacturers. Spain. and solar thermal may restrain solar PV demand. it may likely face significant competition from other renewable sources such as wind. Such technologies include thin film. Japan. Availability of trained installers and balance of system cost reduction is important for solar market development. Slower-than-expected demand growth due to lack of solar ecosystem development in potential demand regions: Solar module costs represent only about 60% of overall solar system costs with the remainder of costs comprised mainly of balance of systems such as installation. thereby reducing overall solar cell cost. spherical silicon among others. Additional risks include successful execution of manufacturing cost roadmap such as improving equipment throughput. Overall competitiveness of solar energy versus other alternative energy sources such as wind. Execution risks associated with cost/watt reduction efforts: We believe continued cost per watt reduction of solar PV electricity is the key to enabling robust market growth. however. and Italy. ribbon technology.

2009 .Solar Energy Handbook 74 May 01.

2009 75 .Solar Energy Handbook Chapter 4: Solar PV Supply Chain Analysis May 01.

In general. 2) the amount of solar radiation per square meter.90/watt CELL $ 1.50 per watt can be achieved if we assume that over the next three to five years. In our view.Solar Energy Handbook The Case for Solar Grid Parity by 2012 Our analysis shows that fully installed solar systems selling at $4 per watt have the potential to compete cost effectively with peak electricity rates in several regions.0 0/w att (spot) $ 0.10/wa tt 2010 POLY $0.3 0/w att $2.40/watt $0 .35/watt (C ontract) $0 . Barclays Capital 76 May 01.20/watt WAFER $0.10/watt $0 . the available market for solar electricity increases by a factor of 2x–3x.10/watt CELL $ 2.00–$4. and 3) the balance of system costs in that region.50/wa tt (blen ded cost) $ 0.40 /wa tt $6.20/watt $1. our analysis shows that at these grid parity cost points.75 /wa tt SYSTEM $4.00/watt Price Cost $1.75 /wa tt $3.50/wa tt Source: Company reports.2 0/w att $1 .3 0/w att $3 .70/watt (C ontract) $3 .30/watt $2. 2009 .90/watt MODULE $3.60/wa tt (blen ded cost) $ 0. Figure 84: Solar Value Chain Cost and ASP Assumptions 2008 POLY $0. Furthermore. the potential for solar to achieve grid parity in a particular region will depend upon 1) the prevailing grid electricity prices. the cost per watt of the various components in the value chain declines as shown in Figure 84.70 /wa tt SYSTEM $7.30/watt WAFER $2.40/watt MODULE $1.00/watt Price Cost $0.6 0/w att $1. the fully installed system cost of $4.4 5/w att (spot) $ 0.

Tokuy am a Mitsubis hi Mate rials S umitom o Titanium Eve rgre en Solar. company reports May 01.C dTe . S unwa ys . Solar Wa tt SunPowe r. BP Solar . Ky oce ra.a-Si Nu mb er o f Co mpan ie s (>4 00) T ech no lo gy: Relatively Lo w D ifferentiation Nu mbe r o f C ompan ie s (>5 .C IGS . sa nyo.000) Te ch nolo gy: R elative ly Low Di fferenti atio n Source: Barclays Capital research. Is ofoton. Ers ol Sc hott Solar. Solarwor ld AG ME MC. 2009 77 .Solar Energy Handbook Figure 85: PV Supply Chain and Major Players Silico n Wa fer Ce ll R EC Group. Luoy ang Silicon H emlock . s har p. Suntec h Solon M o du le System Se kisui C hem ic al C oner gy Phoenix Sonnenstr om AG S AG Solar strom E-Ton Motec h JA Solar S inonar Ginte ch N eo Solar Q-Ce lls Nu mb er o f C ompan ie s (5-10) T e chn olog y: Siemens (Tric hlorosila ne) F luidised Bed Reactor Upgra ded Metal lurgical Silico n Vapor to Liqui d De position N umbe r of Comp anies (~ 50) T e chn olog y: Monocrystalline Multicrystal line Strin g Ri bbon N umbe r of Comp anies (~ 100) T ec hn olog y: Crystalline T hin-Fi lm . Yingli Gre en Ene rgy Photowatt Mits ubis hi Ele ctr ic . A le o Solar . Wa ck er .

48 $ 40 7g/w 6.00 Poly silicon Contr ac t Pr ic e ($/kg) Cell E ffic ie nc y (G/W) P olys ilicon C ontra ct Price ($ /W) Source: Barclays Capital estimates.60 $0 .5g /w $0.24/watt.2 8 $0. which is generally a somewhat lower quality.80 $0 .72/watt. Prior to the robust demand growth in the solar industry.00 $0 .72/watt today to $0. lower cost option. of which approximately 26.036 MT of high-purity silicon was available for the solar industry. more expensive silicon generally used in the manufacture of semiconductors.70 $0 .Solar Energy Handbook Polysilicon Suppliers Polysilicon Prices and Grid Parity Assuming an average polysilicon content of 9g/watt and average polysilicon contract price of $80/kg.50 $40 $0 . 78 May 01. Company da ta. over the past few years.90 $0 . Figure 86: Polysilicon Cost Per Watt Projection (2007–12E) $9 0 $8 0 $7 0 $6 0 $5 0 $4 0 $3 0 $2 0 $1 0 $0 20 07 2 008 2 009 E 2 01 0E 2 01 1E 2 01 2E $70 $0. As shown in Figure 86. We estimate the total polysilicon supply in 2008 was approximately 54. SG polysilicon was often seen as a by-product of recycled (out-of-spec) EG polysilicon. strong demand within the solar PV industry has resulted in robust pricing trends within the SG polysilicon market and created incentives for a number of China-based companies to enter the market. Industry sources There are two types of polysilicon available: 1) EG (electronic grade) polysilicon. Polysilicon manufacturing is currently concentrated among eight major manufacturers that have the capability to produce both EG and SG polysilicon in large volumes. and 2) SG (solar grade) polysilicon. we estimate that polysilicon today accounts for roughly $0.30 $0 .40 $0 . At about $2/watt module prices. solar cells would be competitive to grid electricity and for that to happen we believe polysilicon costs need to decline from $0.250MT.20 $0 .2 4 6g/w $40 $0 . as major polysilicon manufacturers focused on the higher value added (and hence higher price) EG polysilicon.72 $ 60 $8 0 $1 . this could be possible by lower polysilicon prices driven by competition and cost reduction efforts as well as by the use of thinner wafers.214MT of silicon was consumed by the semiconductor industry and 28.26 $0. However.10 $0 . which is a high purity.70 10g /w 9g /w 8 g/w $ 0. 2009 .

5GW of shipments. we assume that 55% of the solar polysilicon was previously contracted. Furthermore.400MT of solar poly was previously contracted.000MT to the semiconductor industry and 10. 2008 Scrap. 2008E Solar.000MT of semiconductor poly and 15.036MT Source: Barclays Capital research We estimate that the incumbent poly manufacturers supplied 26. This means that approximately 26. In order to calculate the spot market size.501MT High purity silicon. and the remaining was sold to the spot market. May 01. 2009 79 . 214MT Source: Barclays Capital research The solar industry consumed approximately 50. 26.0g/W of silicon consumption. we assume that all of the semiconductor demand was previously contracted. 28.600MT of poly sold in the spot market.800MT to the solar industry.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 87: Polysilicon Supply Breakdown.03 6MT Semicondu ct or. 28. This leaves 12.500MT of silicon in 2008 assuming 5. 22. This represents roughly 23% of all polysilicon sold was on the spot market. 2% cell to module efficiency loss and 9. Figure 88: Solar Polysilicon Breakdown.

000 6% 1% 7% 30% 20% 22% 10% 10% 0% 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E Total Poly Suppl y New Entrants % of Total Supply New Entr ants Poly Supply New entrants as % of overal l supply inc. 2009 .000 Supply (MT) 41% 43% 150.000 53% 48% 60% 50% 40% 36% 30% 34% 25% 31% 200.000 100.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 89: New Entrants’ Polysilicon Supply Projections. 2003–12E 250.000 50. Source: Barclays Capital research 80 May 01.

400 1.900 117.000 57.000 1.300 15.100 0 29.000 2.600 11.000 8.000 7.150 0 1.000 500 0 200 700 11.800 5.300 300 3.250 0 33.800 1.250 500 700 300 500 500 10.SETEK Nitol Group HOKU M ater ials Solarworld Others (Rus sia.550 4.500 2.100 0 0 300 700 0 1.000 500 950 500 27.100 1.500 2.000 17.200 5.200 3.300 350 3.250 2008 19.000 0 0 1.800 5.500 8.300 1.750 900 1.550 7.000 1.000 35.200 4.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 90: Worldwide Polysilicon Capacity Year End Capacity (MT) INCUMBENT POLY SUPPLIERS Hemlock Semic onductor Tokuyam a Mitsubis hi Materials Sum itom o Titanium Mitsubis hi Polysilic on REC Wac ker MEMC Incumbents .500 4.000 2.050 1.500 1.500 2.000 8.550 203.150 15.Total Total ( excl.900 1.150 6.500 2.500 18.500 0 0 3. 2009 81 .000 2.600 1.360 4.750 255.050 2011E 36.000 3.000 1.CHINA Total CHINA POLY SUPPLY Asia S ilicon Daqu Group Emei Sem iconductor Luoyang Semiconductor LDK S olar Jiangsu Zhongneng (gcl) Wux i Zhongc ai Sichuan Xinguang Shenzhen Nanbo Shunda Yunnan Aix in Ningx ia Yangguang Others (China) China .500 1.000 3.000 1.Tot al NEW ENTRANT POLY SUPPLIE RS NON .150 18.900 4.CHINA POLY SUP PLY DC Chemic al M.000 1.900 2005 7.000 1.500 0 0 100 500 2.000 3.360 31.000 6.000 1. company reports May 01.300 5.000 5.400 36.000 13.700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28.500 500 3.500 7.400 6.300 1. Met Poly) 2003 6.000 5.500 8.900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31.350 153.200 2.250 15.000 101.Total Met allurgical Silicon Elkem Solar Timm inc o Dow Corning Globe Speciality JACO Solarsi JFE Others Met allurgical Silicon .650 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26.900 187.300 2009E 23.000 8.900 6.000 300 600 450 32.000 6.600 860 1.000 9.200 3.700 2.360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 1.100 4.200 289.000 31.000 59.700 26.000 300 600 450 32.000 2.200 4.800 19.000 50.000 18.250 7.700 28.900 28.500 9.000 360 500 500 0 4.500 500 3.300 350 3.400 4.400 0 1.000 21.900 42.500 3.500 210.500 5.Total New E nt rants .500 12.200 1.600 6.000 5.800 1.800 15.000 35.850 51.000 10.000 35.000 21.000 5.150 38.500 1.150 21.200 24.500 11.950 79.500 15.700 5.250 96.000 500 500 0 17.000 500 2.200 42.500 500 1.200 Source: Barclays Capital research.000 1.000 86.300 6.450 160.000 10.000 300 200 0 0 0 0 0 2.300 5.400 7.200 300 600 450 23.000 125.000 1.000 4.100 1.650 2007 10.000 5.000 1.000 1.600 46.300 6.500 61.000 21.650 7. M et Poly) Total ( incl.250 6.000 3.210 5.000 3.000 74.000 2.000 6.200 3.300 12.300 2.000 7.000 700 750 800 19.450 6.150 12.300 10.200 2.700 2004 6.000 6.500 300 1.000 1.250 2.000 137.600 800 1.000 0 1.000 15.000 6.000 300 600 450 32.000 6.600 700 1.000 65.300 6.500 4.000 3. New entrants) Non .500 14.000 25.300 350 3.800 8.000 0 0 0 0 1.850 2012E 40.000 500 37.000 16.250 10.500 500 3.360 2006 10.450 2010E 28.000 1.000 67.700 26.

000 2.548 1.700 25.000 200 8.500 250 1. However.363 6.360 700 1.175 3.380 1.000 600 850 650 21.000 3. Met P oly) Total (incl.000 1.440 300 1.083 1.219 2008 12.863 122.720 1.715 1.424 880 1.250 3.190 1.Total NE W ENT RANTS .800 3. Met Poly) 2003 6.000 1. small seed particles are introduced and a silane/hydrogen mixture is then fed into a fluidized bed reactor.000 3.300 8.000 750 21.700 871 1.203 15. The silane decomposes around the seed particles increasing their average size to around 1.000 2.438 10.555 0 750 300 510 100 2.000 37% 13.958 2012E 32.150 4.750 32% 58.000 30.200 4.685 200 1.GCL Wuxi Zhongc ai Sic huan Xinguang Shenzhen Nanbo Shunda Yunnan Aix in Ningxia Yangguang Others (China) China .125 2006 8.200 27.100 1.000 6.785 19.695 11.044 83. company reports There are a number of ways to manufacture solar-grade polysilicon—the most common process is the trichlorosilane-based Siemens process.150 4.988 152.825 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29.360 750 1.000 3.240 56.465 35.080 1. New entrants ) Non .878 13.000 4.325 5.000 25.951 2007 10.000 2.025 250 26.000 32% 61.234 7.850 5.843 2009E 17.200 3.360 1.000 2.500 0 0 250 150 500 250 0 1.143 1.563 2011E 27.725 200.000 1.000 400 725 250 0 150 250 250 5.000 31% 49.020 1.100 500 200 500 500 0 3.675 6. The advantages of using this process are proven reliability and durability.625 500 800 300 600 450 14.313 5.000 300 600 450 32.063 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25.600 4.CHINA Total CHINA POLY SUPP LY Asia Silic on Daqu Group Emei Semiconductor Luoyang Semiconduc tor LDK Solar Jiangsu Zhongneng .335 1.100 4.688 6.CHINA POLY S UP PLY DC Chemic al M.500 4.615 17.270 8.000 300 600 450 32.000 1.000 3.313 300 100 404 900 12.500 1.300 6. The main disadvantages include high time and energy requirements.125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 0 0 125 0 0 0 0 125 250 33.000 1.500 9.200 7.326 0 750 0 0 50 250 1.445 13.800 42.500 4.250 5.450 72.750 500 2. vapor-to-liquid technology and metallurgical silicon have been tested recently.300 350 3.688 16.034 91.700 26.250 4. This is the oldest and most common process used in polysilicon manufacturing.000 3.945 174.500 1.300 6.000 4.800 55.300 350 3.300 2.000 6.725 Source: Barclays Capital research.T otal Total (excl.500 500 3.425 9.000 2.000 4.673 2.975 2.500 7.245 2.825 26.329 500 1.200 32.300 325 3.500 1.000 500 16.919 2.680 0 0 150 600 7.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 91: Worldwide Polysilicon Supply Annual Supply ( MT) INCUMBENT P OLY SUPP LIE RS Hemloc k Semiconduc tor Tok uyama Mitsubishi Mater ials Sumitomo Titanium Mitsubishi Polys ilicon RE C Wacker MEMC INCUMBENT P OLY SUPP LIE RS . A large number of solar manufacturers currently use this process to produce SG silicon.000 5.360 830 1.650 109.850 4.769 38.254 5.740 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26.050 0 0 250 500 0 500 150 100 0 0 0 0 0 1.000 82 May 01.500 500 3.000 6.125 4. 2009 .000 6.888 4.000 500 0 1.SETE K Nitol Gr oup HOK U Mater ials Solar world Others (Rus sia.740 2004 6. some other low-cost production methods such as fluidized bed technology.200 4.083 59.083 5.425 138.000 1.850 29.870 914 1.000 1.200 5.Tot al NE W ENT RANT PO LY SUPPLIERS NON .165 1.950 11.148 5.050 5.865 1.803 1.339 8.350 2.663 170.175 0 29.550 37. Siemens Process: The Siemens process utilizes trichlorosilane (or silane) gas as a starting material and converts it to polysilicon through chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process.450 4.500 700 1.825 2005 7.990 2010E 21.000 3.125 29.550 93. Fluidized Bed Reactor Process: In this process.200 4.500 500 1.600 3.600 300 600 450 27.628 11.600 6.125 29.300 3.395 2.740 25.000 1.150 2.400 4.Tot al Metallurgical Silicon Elk em Solar Timminco Dow Corning Globe Speciality JACO Solarsi JFE Others Metallurgical Silicon .128 9.563 14.201 33.090 17.551 808 1.

248 26.839 4.5% 7.136 83.500 8.950 425 6. Elkem and Q-Cells signed a long-term agreement which suggests a potentially wider scale usage of Metallurgical silicon. The main advantages of FBR process include lower operating temperature. it was not used in the manufacture of polysilicon based solar cells.561 26.500 8. For instance. Figure 92: Barclays Capital Polysilicon Demand Model 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E New PV Installation (MW) Inventory Requirement (MW) Total PV Module Shipments (MW) Efficiency Loss Total PV Cell Shipments (MW) Thin Film Supply (MW) Polysilicon Consumed (ton/MW) Total Solar Po ly Reqd (MT ) Po ly deman d from Semis (MT) Total p oly d em an d (MT) Po ly supp ly (MT) .425 10. 2) reduce kerf loss during silicon wafer formation. higher throughput.258 25.0% 3.954 2.700 8.415 3.363 300 9.excluding scrap/UMG 1.677 350 3. the industry has developed technologies that are capable of increasing the size and throughput of silicon ingots. Metallurgical Silicon: Metallurgical silicon is less pure than silicon and consequently although it is cheaper than traditional polysilicon.201 2.023 47. Other Methods: Tokuyama is working on a vapor to liquid deposition (VLD) method for manufacture of solar grade silicon.125 1. and 3) enable the use of thinner wafers. To improve the economics of silicon crystal production.099 26.0 21.929 170.237 1.559 1.945 14.657 92.789 50 10. a private company called Solaicx has a proprietary crystal growing technology that is capable of producing ingots about five times faster than conventional technologies.5% 15.5% 11.0% 7.0% 1. The three primary techniques adopted to reduce the cost of silicon substrates are: 1) reduce the cost of silicon crystal.712 30.0 63. and purification technology.0 90.214 85.808 200 2. direct reduction. May 01. 2009 83 .977 152.406 72.0 44.769 5.725 Source: Barclays Capital research.151 500 14.582 29.375 2.231 75 10.460 150 1.083 500 9.218 120.034 6.454 500 4.799 53.462 56.994 27.5 29.651 1.109 450 10.0 59. lower energy consumption and consistent product quality.837 400 7.008 2. silicon substrates account for almost 70% of the cost of solar panels.323 43. QCells plans to use the Metallurgical silicon along with a new process in the manufacture of solar cells.0% 2.337 20.504 1.5 32.546 37.5 18. Recently.584 33.399 122. Solarbuzz Polysilicon Demand Polysilicon usage per Watt: Silicon substrates typically account for almost 50% of the cost of solar panels and in instances where polysilicon is sourced from the spot market. Other methods in pilot production include tube deposition technology.446 55.027 2.610 2.200 8.083 4.0% 5.Solar Energy Handbook microns. Silicon Crystal Cost Reduction: Silicon crystal formation is the first step in making the wafers that are ultimately converted into solar PV cells.824 2.320 29.

New brick cutting technologies that have the potential to significantly reduce the kerf loss are under development. without sacrificing cell efficiencies. the bricks are cut into wafers. The current industry standard thickness is about 200 microns and the industry roadmap is to reduce the thickness to about 120 microns over the next three to five years by using new wafer cutting techniques/equipment.5% in 2008 to 18. Furthermore. The thinner the wafer. Thinner Wafers: During the final step of wafer formation. The industry is working on incorporating the use of multilayer interconnect ribbons of aluminum and copper that could potentially improve module efficiencies. and 3) resistive loss resulting from conductive ribbon used as an interconnect between cells and modules. which could ultimately result in improved cost performance. For instance. Most of the solar cell manufacturers have announced plans to improve cell efficiencies over the next three to five years and are currently in the process of transferring the lab based higher efficiency cells into volume production. During the brick formation process. 84 May 01. Solar Cell Efficiency Ratings: We assume average cell efficiencies will increase from 16. a significant amount of silicon is wasted and is this known in the industry as Kerf Loss (roughly 11kg of silicon is lost out of a total size of about 260kg during the brick formation step). the less the polysilicon usage. Usage of thinner wafers is the most effective way of lowering production costs. 2) efficiency loss resulting from glass absorption. 2009 . a reduction of wafer thickness from 200 microns to 120 microns is estimated to result in a 12. solar module efficiencies are about two percentage points lower than cell efficiencies due to: 1) efficiency loss resulting from cell packaging and module frames.5% reduction in the required number of grams of silicon per watt.Solar Energy Handbook Kerf Loss (Silicon Waste) Reduction: The next step once the silicon ingots are formed is to convert these ingots into bricks that are ultimately cut into wafers.5% by 2012.

0 301.2 2579.087 0.0 18.0 0.0 63.9 0.4 7397.5 3286.9 7.799 32.323 0.0 40.2 4053.0 159.994 72.3 2433.337 53.5 29.1 20.0 79.1 5261.Solar Energy Handbook Polysilicon Supply/Demand We believe one of the key swing factors for the polysilicon industry supply/demand is likely to be semiconductor industry demand and upgraded metallurgical silicon adoption.0 50.0 0.214 0.9 399.794 2005 25.0 0.0 18.099 55.0 21.977 2012E 30. Inch 2.0 377.5 26.8 2238.5 1217.2 1972.0 6.1 304.0 0.8 26.0 339.281 0.2 3278.0 4.657 0.7 2.0 1.0 55.6 443.4 1423.0 37.0 0.0 145.0 0.462 2009E 20.0 30.0 9827.0 48.6 4312.8 1095.323 18.0 60.0 0.0 41.3 59.0 50.9 266.657 63.320 92.0 52.0 4.8 7691.4 12.4 15809.4 30.3 1122.1 5. Figure 93: Polysilicon Demand Drivers – Semiconductor Industry 2005 200 6 2007 20 08 2009 E 2010 E 2 011E 20 12E Millions of Waf ers 2 inches 3 inches 100mm 125mm 150mm 200mm 300mm Total Wafers Millions of Square Inches 2 inches 3 inches 100mm 125mm 150mm 200mm 300mm Total MS I Metric Tons Polysilicon 2 inches 3 inches 100mm 125mm 150mm 200mm 300mm Total Poly Demand 0.8 1972.4 7.136 2010E 27.1 3.8 3066.582 2006 26.8 4382.0 5.2 3.0 0.0 40.966 Gram Per S q. Industry Sour ces Figure 94: Worldwide Polysilicon Demand (Metric Tons) Worldwide P oly Demand (MT) Semis Solar Cells Total 2003 19.0 150.3 176.584 2007 26.0 0.0 188.2 11.712 120.023 0.1 522.0 48.218 Source: Barclays Capital research.258 43.446 29.0 0.0 8877.7 1417.248 85.0 165.0 8.799 0.7 7.0 14.0 121.2 13.9 3.0 0.3 1177.1 4983.0 45.4 1232.1 6.5 2629.0 12457.0 2676.446 0.840 0.8 9802.406 0.3 415.013 0.6 5660.5 133.5 380.7 228.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 399.3 12818.1 6.4 1369.0 129.8 4120.4 8507.0 23.2 0.9 730.0 9.0 0.399 2011E 29.023 21.0 0.7 9247.0 1278.518 14.546 2008 26.9 2519.1 10254.3 4599. 2009 85 .561 47.024 27.316 2004 23.0 18.0 0.0 48.4 3737.1 3929.0 0.9 23.0 21.997 0.0 39.6 2336.0 12.8 7.0 43.2 11651.0 97.5 16.0 109.0 154.2 1067.406 44.0 0.218 90.4 7.0 46.6 852.4 1314.0 0.1 1946.5 0.0 245.8 3.0 145.0 0.5 10172.2 973.1 4791.0 20.4 168.0 0.0 4.0 0.1 26.2 1349.214 59.5 17091.4 342.7 25.0 0.3 1278.0 10.5 27.0 0.0 141.6 7691. Industry sources May 01.0 24.0 53.5 3.0 1617.291 8.0 1.0 0.276 37.929 Worldwide P olysilicon Demand % Change Year-over-Year 2003 Semis Solar Cells Total Worldwide P olysilicon Demand as a % of Tot al 2003 Semis Solar Cells Total 71% 29% 100% 2004 62% 38% 100% 2005 58% 42% 100% 2006 55% 45% 100% 2007 48% 52% 100% 2008 31% 69% 100% 2009E 39% 61% 100% 2010E 38% 62% 100% 2011E 32% 68% 100% 2012E 25% 75% 100% 2004 22% 78% 38% 2005 8% 28% 15% 2006 3% 18% 9% 2007 2% 35% 17% 2008 -1% 104% 54% 2009E -21% -45% -38% 2010E 32% 39% 36% 2011E 8% 41% 28% 2012E 2% 43% 30% Source: Barclays Capital research.858 0.591 0.1 67.

000 150.000 250. 2009 .000 200.000 300.000 100. spot prices for polysilicon were as high as $400/kg.000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E Year End Capacit y (MT) Annual Supply (MT ) W orldwide Poly Demand (M T) Source: Barclays Capital research. and well above the 2003 levels of $25/kg. higher than the $250–$300/kg price in 2007. and Demand 350. Supply. Figure 96: Polysilicon Spot and Contract Pricing Trends $600 Spot Pr ices $ 500 Contract Prices $500 $400 $350 $300 $27 5 $200 $100 $35 $0 2003 2004 $ 50 $25 $35 $75 $45 $50 $65 $85 $100 $ 75 $5 0 $70 $30 $60 $30 $ 50 20 05 2006 2007 2 008E 200 9E 2010E 2 011E 201 2E Source: Barclays Capital research 86 May 01. Company reports Polysilicon Spot and Contract Pricing Polysilicon prices are driven mainly by supply/demand balance. In 2008.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 95: Polysilicon – Capacity.000 50. we expect the supply tightness to continue into 2009. and as lead times to bring a new polysilicon production facility are around two years.

4%–0. are removed by directional solidification although additional actions are required to remove boron and phosphorous impurities.1%–0.6%). UMG is generally 99. Impurities such as iron. The slag is then removed to leave high purity solar grade silicon. 2009 87 . titanium (0. the solar industry uses polysilicon or semiconductor grade silicon which is extremely pure of the magnitude of 99.2%–0. The liquid crude is treated with oxidative gases in order to oxidize impurities like aluminum and calcium.5% pure silicon. A synthetic slag can also be added for further refining. It is 98%–98.02%–0. Most of the impurities from metallurgical silicon. Removal of the major impurities in metallurgical silicon makes it effective to use for solar applications.15%). The carbothermic reduction of the silica (quartz) results in molten silicon which collects at the bottom of the furnace from where it is removed periodically. The agents are introduced either in the form of solid powders added to the metallurgical silicon prior to the melting or as reactive gases added to the molten silicon. This reduces the phosphorous concentration as well as other volatile impurities such as magnesium.9%–99. Metallurgical Grade Silicon Metallurgical grade silicon is also called silicon metal.Solar Energy Handbook Upgraded Metallurgical Silicon (Solar Grade Silicon) Currently. Further refining requires oxidation of the impurities to form species which are removed as slag or as vapor. and chlorine. such as iron. calcium (0.0%). The main impurities in the liquid crude silicon are iron (0. aluminum.99999%. aluminum (0.1%). Solar applications do not require such high purity levels to function effectively. Quartz and carbon materials are inserted into an electric furnace heated to high temperatures in the range of 19000– 2100 C. It is usually produced in electric arc furnaces from quartz. The liquid silicon is then separated mechanically from the slag formed. phosphorous and boron are removed through the formation of volatile molecular species by having them react with externally added agents containing oxygen. hydrogen. titanium. magnesium. 0 Refining of Metallurgical Silicon to Produce UMG The first step for refining the metallurgical silicon is to heat it in a molten state under vacuum in order to remove the vola tile elements.999% pure. magnesium and carbon. and carbon (0. This is referred to as upgraded metallurgical silicon (UMG).2%–1. Boron and phosphorous are removed using oxidation. calcium. May 01.7%).

Timminco uses 2kWh per kg to produce its products. Conventional polysilicon methods also create a large amount of toxic substances which need to be effectively recycled.600MT capacity plant. UMG production on the other hand only requires a fraction of this electricity. Timminco Cost Differential Between Polysilicon and UMG The costs of producing polysilicon are much higher than the cost of producing upgraded metallurgical silicon.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 97: Schematic Approach for the Refining Process As-received. 88 May 01. The major reasons for this cost differential are: Polysilicon plants are extremely capital intensive. 2009 . requiring investments of up to $100 per kilogram. commercially available MG Silicon Modified HEM Furnace Melting Slag Refining Gases and Moisture Directional Solidification Solar Grade Silicon Source: Barclays Capital research . UMG capital costs are considerably lower. Polysilicon production is also energy intensive and could require 100kWh–135kWh per kg making electricity one of the largest input costs during production. with Timminco investing less than $50 million to build a 3. The recycling process is also extremely capital intensive.

We see downstream installers readily adopting this technology as long as module manufacturers provide them the requisite warranty. Silicon consumption would increase from 10g/W to 14g/W. in our view: 1. if 1. Usage of UMG increases breakage rate from less than 5% for regular silicon to almost 15%. 4. We think the potential adoption of UMG is likely to ultimately depend upon poly prices. The most significant issue with UMG processing is dealing with waste. using UMG. Technology adoption by downstream installers. If the UMG silicon price was $60/kg. 3.000 grams would yield only 600 grams of silicon and result in 70W of modules.Solar Energy Handbook Polysilicon is created by refining metallurgical-grade silicon.000 grams of silicon produced 100W of modules (assuming 850 grams of silicon were used to produce 100W of modules). degradation/reliability concerns are likely to potentially increase instead of solve the industry problem. Cell to module processing cost for UMG modules is $0. The increase in the prices of raw materials required for production has also raised production costs for polysilicon more than it has affected UMG producers. Furthermore. we see the installers readily accept UMG products as long as the financial institutions provide them the relevant financing. poly to module conversion costs) in the following ways: Poly to ingots. Our preliminary analysis suggests that UMG becomes less attractive as poly prices decline to below $200/kg We assume that UMG increases processing costs (i.e. polysilicon. believe that based on the lifetime test results. Long-term successful development of the metallurgical silicon market would depend on the following four factors. According to UMG companies. We believe these lower yields result in an increase in silicon costs of approximately $15/kg. Capacity ramps of UMG suppliers. Polysilicon price development. Casting yields are significantly lower (around 60% after recycling compared with regular silicon casting yield of 85%). on the other hand. Reliability issues should continue to restrain the “quality” conscious solar manufacturers from adopting UMG. In other words. The process leads to the wastage of 75%–80% of the silicon as by-products which cannot be used. 2009 89 . 1.. Quality improvement by UMG suppliers.03/W higher than regular silicon modules. May 01. Wafers to cells. lifetime testing results are inconclusive and tests conducted so far have resulted in scrapping of reasonable material.02 to $0. leading to an increase in the price of the end product. it would increase by $24/kg. 2. Cells to modules. The poly suppliers.

Solar Energy Handbook Solar Wafer Manufacturers Figure 98: Wafer Price Forecast $3 .00 ASP ($/W s 2.45 2.4W for mono).01 2. First.06 2.50 $0 .00 1. Some of the disadvantages of multi-crystalline silicon technology include lower conversion efficiency compared to mono-crystalline technology. the processing cost of multi-crystalline wafers is generally lower than that of mono-crystalline wafers.6W compared to 2. multi-crystalline wafers can be manufactured by using lower cost scrap and metallurgical grade silicon increasing the potential to lower manufacturing costs.15 1.40 1. and long lead times for multi-crystalline equipment versus relatively short lead times for mono technology.50 1.20 1. multi-crystalline wafers offer several compelling advantages over monocrystalline wafers. Second the size of multi-crystalline wafers is larger than that of mono-crystalline (156mm x 156mm vs.30 1.20 2.00 1.83 1. Finally.88 $1 .25 1.50 2. 125mm x 125mm) which means multi-crystalline wafers can produce higher wattage cells (3.05 $1 .00 $2 .35 $2 .10 1.00 Q10 7 Q20 7 Q30 7 Q40 7 Q10 8 Q20 8 Q30 8 Q40 8E Q10 9E Q20 9E Q30 9E Q40 9E Q1 1 0E Q2 1 0E Q3 1 0E Q4 1 0E Source: Barclays Capital estimates Mono-Crystalline Versus Multi-Crystalline Wafer Technology In general. 90 May 01. 2009 . limited multi-crystalline technology equipment suppliers (GT Solar and ALD).00 $0 .

Solar Energy Handbook

Solar Cell Manufacturers We Prefer Companies with Cost/Watt Advantage, Clear Efficiency Improvement Roadmap, and Secure Low Cost Polysilicon Supply Given our conservative outlook on pricing and polysilicon input costs, we believe companies that have a cost-per-watt advantage are likely to better withstand the competitive market dynamics and likely emerge as market share leaders in 2009. As such we prefer companies that we believe have the potential to lower manufacturing costs and a strong R&D effort to improve conversion efficiencies. Silicon Solar Cell Manufacturing Process There are typically five major steps in the production of silicon solar cell, namely: 1. Etching and Polishing. Etching removes an unusable layer on the silicon wafer after the wire-sawing process. The polishing steps removed the particles on the wafer surface. 2. Cleaning. The polished wafer is then cleaned with DI water to remove all impurities on the surface. 3. Diffusion. The silicon wafer produced is usually p-typed. As explained in an earlier section, solar cell needs an n-type layer in order to create an electric field inside the cell. An n-type dopant is usually deposited on the surface of p-type substrate through a heat diffusion process, creating a “p-n junction” between the p-type and n-type layer. 4. Anti-reflective coating. To avoid any energy losses by reflection; an anti-reflective coating is applied on the surface of the silicon wafer. The major chemical used in this process is either silicon nitride or titanium dioxide. The layering is conducted through a socalled plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) process. 5. Screen Printing. A grid-like metal contact made up of “fine-fingers” is screen printed onto the front surface through the use of silver paste. The rear side of the wafer is also formed by screen printing a metal paste, typically aluminum. The metal contacts on the surface and rear side then act as electrodes of the solar cell, which can then be interconnected for further assembly into a solar module.

May 01, 2009

91

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 99: Multi-Crys talline Solar Cell Manufacturing Process
Raw Material Casting Cutting- Slicing

Polysilicon

P-type silicon mass

Wafer Slicing

Junction formation

Sur face Tr eatment

Multicr ystalline Si P-type wafer

P-N Fusion

surface etching

Back side junction P-layer

Anti- reflection Anti-reflection coating

Electrode formation front (- )

Solder Immersion Solder Solder

back(-)

Source: Kyocera, Barclays Capital research

Solar Cell Pricing Figure 100: Cell Price Forecast

$4 .00 $3 .50 $3 .00 $2 .50
AS ($/W Ps

3.21 2.95 2.92 3.02 3.01

3.31

3.42

2.50

$2 .00 $1 .50 $1 .00 $0 .50 $0 .00 Q10 7 Q20 7 Q30 7 Q40 7 Q10 8 Q20 8 Q30 8 Q40 8E

1.70

1.60

1.55

1.50

1.45

1.40

1.35

1.30

Q10 9E

Q20 9E

Q30 9E

Q40 9E

Q1 1 0E

Q2 1 0E

Q3 1 0E

Q4 1 0E

Source: Barclays Capital research

92

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 101: Barclays Capital Global Solar Installed Capacity Model (MWp)
Europe BP S olar Q-Cel ls Sol arworld REC Ersol Isofoton Schott Sol ar Sol land Sol ar Other Total Europe Solar % Change Y/Y Japan Sharp Kyocera Mitsubishi Sanyo Other Total Japan Solar % Change Y/Y US SunPower Fi rst Solar Evergreen Sol ar EverQ Nanosolar Mias ole Energy Conversion Devices Other Total US Solar % Change Y/Y China Suntech Power JA Solar Yingli Green Energy Chi na S unergy Canadian Sol ar Sol arfun Tri na Solar Other Total China Solar % Change Y/Y Taiwan E-Ton Motech Green E nergy Tech Total Taiwan Solar % Change Y/Y Other Regions Worldwide Solar Capacity % Change Y/Y 40 170 40 15 15 25 0 0 0 305 90 292 90 35 60 70 50 10 0 697 129% 450 150 130 100 17 847 66% 50 25 14 0 0 0 20 10 119 261% 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 400% 70 100 0 170 113% 0 1,983 107% 200 420 140 45 60 90 60 30 10 1,055 51% 600 240 230 160 20 1,250 48% 108 75 14 30 0 0 32 20 279 134% 270 30 50 30 0 50 50 0 480 220% 100 240 0 340 100% 20 3,424 73% 250 645 185 55 120 130 80 40 20 1,525 45% 650 280 260 240 34 1,464 17% 174 309 15 100 5 10 118 25 756 171% 540 210 200 80 100 240 150 0 1520 217% 200 240 0 440 29% 50 5,755 68% 360 950 250 80 180 170 163 170 50 2,373 56% 710 330 315 300 50 1,705 16% 414 622 40 180 25 20 178 45 1,524 102% 1,000 600 400 320 270 360 350 30 3,330 119% 320 560 30 910 107% 80 9,922 72% 440 1,100 450 100 280 210 223 170 100 3,073 29% 710 400 375 400 70 1,955 15% 574 1,293 160 250 40 40 300 60 2,717 78% 1,000 800 600 400 270 400 450 20 3,940 18% 440 560 30 1,030 13% 120 12,835 29% 500 1,575 450 150 280 250 300 200 100 3,805 24% 1,710 475 570 475 90 3,320 70% 814 1,738 160 250 50 50 300 60 3,422 26% 1,000 1,000 900 400 500 500 550 100 4,950 26% 500 600 30 1,130 10% 180 16,807 31% 450 1,700 450 250 500 350 350 200 200 4,450 17% 2,000 500 800 600 120 4,020 21% 1000 3,426 200 600 480 100 450 130 6,386 87% 1,400 1,200 1,200 450 550 800 650 140 6,390 29% 600 600 50 1,250 11% 240 22,736 35% 350 1,700 600 250 800 500 400 200 200 5,000 12% 2,500 700 1,200 800 150 5,350 33% 1200 4,816 200 900 480 200 600 170 8,566 34% 1,800 1,400 1,500 500 700 1,000 750 170 7,820 22% 700 700 70 1,470 18% 310 28,516 25%

300 70 90 50 0 510

30 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 33

30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30

30 50 0 80 0 958

Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

93

Solar Energy Handbook

Solar Module Manufacturers Figure 102: Module Pricing

$4 .50
4.12

$4 .00 $3 .50 $3 .00
AS ($/W Ps

3.95 3.78 3.78 3.68 3.61

3.94

3.26 2.77 2.60 2.51 2.40 2.10 1.94

$2 .50 $2 .00 $1 .50 $1 .00 $0 .50 $0 .00 Q1 07 Q2 07 Q3 07 Q4 07 Q1 08 Q2 08 Q3 08 Q4 E 08 Q1 E 09 Q2 E 09 Q3 E 09

1.83

1.73

Q4 E 09

Q1 10 E

Q2 10 E

Q3 10 E

Q4 10 E

Source: Barclays Capital research

Fragmented Market Due to Low Barriers to Entry The solar module market is fragmented with low barriers to entry and relatively low valueadded technology. As a result, there are more than 400 module makers worldwide serving the key solar PV markets. We believe that over time the number of standalone module manufacturers will decline as most of the companies aim to move up the value chain into the higher-margin cell manufacturing business.

94

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 103: Module Market Share (2007)
Sunt ech 14%

Rest o f the Wo rld 18%

Canadian So lar 3% Sun Po wer 4% So lo n 5% B P So la r 5% M it subish i Electric 5% So larwo rld 5% Yin gli Gree n Energy 6% San yo 6%

Sharp 14%

Kyo cera 8%

First So lar 8%

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital research

Vertical Integration Is Key to Increasing Profitability, in Our View In general, the margins of module manufacturers are about 300 to 500 basis points lower than that of cell manufacturers. Consequently, we expect an increasing number of module manufacturers to move into the cell business over time as the polysilicon bottleneck eases and barriers to entry in the cell business decline. Overall, we expect margins in both the cell and module business to decline going forward; however, we believe that the difference between cell and module margins will decrease as more cell capacity becomes available. Due to the relatively commoditized nature of the module manufacturing business, we expect vertically integrated companies to generate higher margins and consequently trade at a premium to the stand-alone module manufacturers.

May 01, 2009

95

Solar Energy Handbook

System Integrators We Expect System Integrators with Strong End Market Presence to Benefit from Low Cell/Module Pricing The system integration companies operate at the very end of the value chain and are generally involved in setting up the solar systems at the end user, which include several tasks such as site preparation, systems design and analysis, financial analysis, and maintenance. We believe regional trends will continue to dominate the systems integration market and will likely remain the biggest factor influencing solar market development in certain regions, particularly as cell and module prices decline. As barriers to entry in the systems installation market remain relatively low, we expect companies with strong regional expertise and established relationships to emerge as potential winners. We Expect System Integrator Margins to Increase as Potential Bottleneck Arises in 2010 As cell and module prices decline over time, we expect systems integration costs to become a larger proportion of the overall systems costs. In our view, lowering balance of systems costs would remain the biggest challenge in the industry as many of the components have very little potential for any significant cost reduction. As a result of high cell/module pricing and relatively low entry barriers, systems integrators generate the lowest margins in the value chain. However, as cell/module prices decline over time and as demand in certain markets such as the U.S. increases significantly, we expect the bargaining power to shift toward system integrators that have the scale and the relationships with key end customers. Solar System Components There are three major elements of a solar PV system: solar modules; inverter; and battery (optional). Solar modules are the basic building blocks of a solar PV system. Any number of modules can be interconnected for providing the required electrical outp ut. Since the electricity produced by PV modules is in DC (direct current), it has to be converted into AC (alternate current) through the use of an inverter before connection to the AC power grid is possible. Depending on the user’s energy consumption requirement, a battery may be necessary to store the sola r electricity produced during the daytime. This is particularly the case if the system is off-grid. If the PV system is connected to the power grid, excess electricity produced during the daytime can be sold to the grid and brought back in the evening. A battery is usually required only for off-grid solar PV system. PV modules normally can be used for 20 to 30 years, but inverters and batteries have to be replaced every five to 10 years. The PV module is still the major cost component of a PV system, representing over 60% of the total system cost in general. Solar PV systems are less expensive in Germany as it represented the largest market in 2005 (53% of global PV installation in 2005) which enjoyed economies of scale in terms of lower module input price and system integration

96

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

costs. It should also be noted that low-priced thin film modules in Germany, particularly in large ground-mounted projects, have also played their part. Inverters Solar PV cells produce and store direct current (DC) that flows in a single direction. In contrast, alternating current (AC) reverses its course at regular intervals. Utilities provide AC electricity, the type required to run most household appliances and electronic devices. A system inverter’s role is to convert the supplied DC into the desired AC. While a small amount of energy is lost through the process, this conversion allows PV electricity to be sold back to the utility or used for everyday applications such as personal appliances, computers, or lights. Inverters are available in two different classes: sine wave and modified sine wave. Sine wave inverters supply utility-grade power and are required for grid-tied systems. Those that are grid-tied are called synchronous inverters. The output of modified sine wave inverters is not as clean, but they are less expensive and can usually function fine in many standalone applications. Batteries Batteries collect and store energy produced during periods when there is no sunshine, an essential component for off-grid or emergency backup systems. Several batteries linked together form a “bank,” enclosed by the battery box for security and ventilation purposes. A battery bank’s size depends on the electric load, duration of required reserve power, and availably of a backup power source. Solar electric systems use two types of batteries: leadacid and gel cell. Lead-acid batteries are less expensive but require more frequent maintenance. Sealed gel cell batteries require almost no maintenance but are bigger in size and can cost twice as much.

May 01, 2009

97

” or preventing the battery from overcharging. $2. also known as "Million Solar Roofs Program. "is a 10-year.Solar Energy Handbook Charge controllers A charge controller directs the energy flow. In the residential segment. Solarcity is currently the largest installer on a per MW basis with 13% market share followed by REC Solar and Akeena Solar.2 billion incentives program aiming to add 3. approximately 660 companies participated in the installation of solar systems in California. which can be detrimental to system performance. 3% Other 70% Source: California Solar Initiative. Inc.000MW new solar electricity by 2017. Since the program's inception. it has received nearly 20. Inc. Barclays Capital research 98 May 01. In the non-residential segment. Figure 104: Active Residential Installers (MW Basis) SolarCity 13% REC Solar.000 applications (including all active applications). encompassing nearly 350MW of solar insta llations. California System Integrator Market The California Solar Initiative. 8% Akeena Solar. During this time. 2009 . SunPower is currently the largest installer on a per MW basis with 17% market share followed by SunEdison and Chevron Energy Solutions. Its role is essentially “voltage regulating. 6% Borrego Solar Systems Inc. and prolongs the battery life of a system.

7% Source: California Solar Initiative. 2009 99 .Solar Energy Handbook Figure 105: Active Non-Residential Installers (MW Basis) SunPower 17% Chevron 9% Other 58% SunEdison 9% SPG Solar. Inc. Barclays Capital Research May 01.

Solar Energy Handbook 100 May 01. 2009 .

Solar Energy Handbook Chapter 5: Solar Equipment Market May 01. 2009 101 .

We expect solar equipment sector growth to be defined by unit volumes. Similarly. Unlike semiconductor industry.0 4 .0 DRAM Solar Source: Barclays Capital research Source: Barclays Capital research 102 May 01. we expect the silicon based equipment market to increase from $2. We estimate the solar industry could spend approximately $18 billion on equipment capex (not including land and building capex) over the next four years to add approximately 20GW of capacity.9 x 5. investments in new manufacturing equipment followed.Solar Energy Handbook The Solar Equipment Market Solar Equipment—No Moore's Law Here Semiconductor equipment industry growth over the past 20 years was defined by Moore's Law—as the semiconductor companies continued to drive down line widths to continuously improve performance of semiconductor devices.0 1.0 2. we do not expect any Moore's Law in the solar industry.5 billion in 2009 to $5. we believe the profits generated over the life of a solar fab more than cover the profits generated over the life of semiconductor fab. As shown in Figures 108 and 109.5 billion in 2012. 2009 .0 4.3 x 0. the revenue generated over the depreciated life of a solar fab is substantially greater than the revenue generated over the depreciated life of a semiconductor fab.0 2x 0 .0 3. As shown in Figures 106 and 107. which triggered the boom and bust cycles as well as significant growth of the semiconductor equipment industry. Figure 106: EBITDA Return over Capital Investments 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 DRA M Solar 3 9x Figure 107:EBITDA Return over Capital Investments 6.

505 $4.000 45% 30% 10.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 108: Solar Equipment Capex ($.433 $1.939 $4.374 $1. Company data May 01.000 15% 2007 2008E Cel l/Modul e Capacity 0% 2009E 2010E 2011E Capacity Util ization 2012E Ce ll/Modu le Prod uction Source: Barclays Capital research. 2009 103 . Million) $5.668 $2.016 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E Source: Barclays Capital research Figure 109: Crysta lline Cell Capacity Utilization (MW versus % utilization) 40.000 60% 20.000 90% 75% 30.653 $4.570 $2.

PVD equipment for depos iting metals. PECVD systems used on production line. Figure 111: Crysta lline Silicon Equipment Landscape Company Applied Materials Baccini Centrotherm Crystalline Silicon Equipment Sputtering equipment for silic on nitride and anti-reflec tive coatings Solar cell s creen printing lines to deposit thick film conductive paste Diffusion. environmental abatement equipment W afer manufacturing furnaces . This means many of the tools for an entire facility might come from one vendor. equipm ent for drawing and cutting silicon tubes. in most cases. PVD equipment for single substrate. Laser patterning equipment. PECVD equipment for silicon nitride and anti-reflec tive c oating. The general trend is to have the ability to produce (or partner with others to produce) integrated turnkey solar panel production lines. firing and drying furnaces. PECVD systems use one substrate at a time. solar panel module m anufacturing and test equipment GT Solar Manz Automation Roth & Rau Spire Source: Company data 104 May 01. wet etching systems. CVD equipment for depositing back contacts. 2009 . oxidation. Applied Materials Leyvold Optics Oerlik on Solar Ulvac Von Ardenne Source: Company data Most of the thin film equipment companies compete directly against each other in the areas of silicon and metal deposition equipment. Modular process systems capacble of PECVD (for depositing silic on based materials). automated loading and unloading equipment for crystalline s ilicon photovoltaic c ell plants. or PVD systems for depositing metals. depos ition equipment. or one group of affiliated vendors. c ustomer furnaces and test equipment Automation equipment for solar panel production. including substrate handling systems. plas ma etching equipment and plasma proces sing systems for R&D Solar cell testing and sorting equipment. Figure 110: Thin Film Equipment Landscape Company Thin Film Equipment Plasma enhanced chemical vapor depos ition equipment. CVD equipment for depositing various transparent conducting oxides (TCOs). PVD systems for depositing metals. CVD equipment for depositing T CO films. dominated by regional players. CVD equipment for depositing T CO films. equipment for depos iting special c oatings.Solar Energy Handbook Solar Equipment Market Landscape The solar cell equipment market is fragmented and. turnk ey solar c ell and module production lines. equipment for depositing various silicon-based layers.

10% Source: Barclays Capital estimates Figure 113: Solar Cell Production Process Flow Chart R ins ing Ri nsin g is th e proce ss duri ng wh ich ul tra soni c cl ean ing i s p erforme d on sil icon w afers. fo llo wed b y ch emica l tre atmen t of th e water surfac e. 15% Module. 60% TF Cell. wh ich red uces the ce lls refle cti on of sunl igh t an d imp roves sun lig ht a bsorp ti on ca paci ty Dif fusion Di ffus ion is the p rocess du ring w hich ce rtain im puri ti es are in tro duce d into the si lico n wafer throu gh a therm al pro cess to e nab le the forma ti on of an el ectric fiel d within the PV ce ll Et ching Etchin g is th e proce ss th at i s a ppl ied o n th e bord er of th e wafers to preve nt d irect ele ctri cal sh orting b etwee n th e fro nt a nd the ba ck of e ach PV cell Secondary R insing Seco nda ry R insi ng is the pro cess du ring w hich the w afer surface i s ch emica lly cle ane d to re move the si lico n dio xide tha t may ha ve fo rmed o n the surfac e of the w ater in ord er to i mpro ve th e cell 's c apa city to abso rb lig ht PEC VD PECVD i s the p roces s w hich p rodu ces sili con ni tri de film o n th e wafer' s su rfa ce in the fron t. ne gative a nd po sitive metal co ntacts. a re prin te d on the fron t an d back su rfa ces of th e PV cel l. o r e lectrod es. 15% c -Si Cell.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 112: Overall 2008 Solar Equipment Market Breakdown Wafering. Firing Sil icon a nd metal e lectro des are co nne cte d th roug h an e lectrod e fi ring p ricess in a conve yo r b elt fu rna ce at h igh temp eratu re Test ing and Sort ing PV cell s a re te ste d to d etermi ne thei r e lectrica l perfo rmance a nd so rte d base d on thei r co nvers ion ra te Source: Barclays Capital research May 01. 2009 105 . whi ch impro ves th e PV c ell' s ca paci ty to abso rb sun lig ht Screen P rinting Throu gh the scre en pri nting p rocess .

Lam ination The interconnected cells ar e then laid out and laminated in a vacuum thr ough a heating pr ocess.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 114: Solar Module Production Process Flow Chart Welding Multiple PV cells are interconnected based on the desir ed electrical configur ations through welding. PV modules are sealed in weather pr oof packages that can withstand high levels of ultraviolet readiation and moistur e Framing Assembled PV modules are packaged in pr otective aluminum frames pr ior to testing Testing PV modules ar e tested to determine their electr ical performance Source: Barclays Capital research The approximate breakdown of equipment spending among the various equipment categories is as follows: Figure 115: Crysta lline Cell Equipment Market Breakdown Wafer Handling. 25% Printer Lines . 15% Wet Chemis try . 25% Diffusion Furnac es . 2009 . Thr ough lamination. 25% Anti-reflecting Coating . 10% Source: Barclays Capital estimates 106 May 01.

The high cost of such rods largely deters its use on an industrial scale. such as Norway’s REC. Controlled cooling ensures that this happens in a single direction.Solar Energy Handbook Silicon Crystal Growth There are three dominant equipment categories for crystallizing molten silicon feedstock. using sophisticated pullers and rigorous process controls. Unlike DSS. More recently. 2009 107 . The CZ process is employed by solar companies to commercially produce mono-crystalline ingots. Mono-crystalline silicon ingots can also be grown directly from a polysilicon rod using the FZ process. claiming to hold a 50% market share in its domestic market. If this is true.. Directional Solidification Systems (DSS). Float Zone Systems (FZ). ingot structure can be either multi or mono-crysta lline. PVA Tepla AG. Notable challengers include Ferrptec Corp. Multi-crystalline ingots are cast by solidifying smelt inside a DSS furnace. Market Players Aside from the multi-crystalline silicon companies that make their equipment in-house or hold exclusive products. Although its use reduces manufacturing flexibility. and France’s ECM. As for the FZ systems. Figure 116: DSS Furnace and Silicon Ingot Source: GT Solar May 01. which eliminates the need for crucibles. Czochralski Systems (CZ). with Jinyungtong Corp. At this step of the PV value chain. there are currently only two manufacturers worldwide: Germany’s Steremat Elektrowärme GmbH and PVA Tepla Danmark. European and Japanese manufacturers have begun offering similar systems in the DSS market. the most widely utilized furnace across the entire PV industry is still provided by GT Solar. the company is far outpacing the big western names. the process enhances a solar cell’s quality and power output. the CZ segment is currently dominated by Chinese manufacturers.

There are also currently many Chinese and German wafer cleaning equipment manufacturers. including acid rinse baths and texturing processes. Wire Saws. now acquired by Applied Materials. Tube Furnace.. a threat to conventional band saws. while the most expensive tube furnace is offered by Semco Engineering in France. The cheapest tube furnace is manufactured by Sevenstar Huachuang in China. have traditionally been used for precision slicing of multi and mono-crystalline ingots into bricks. Tempress in Holland. HCT Shaping Systems. because they consist of many parallel wires that perform at a faster rate. It is difficult to estimate their market shares as most are disinclined to provide sales numbers. Wafer Cleaning There are many cleaning methods. with diamond-coated bands. Other market players include Koyo in Japan. to ensure that the silicon wafers are free of contaminants. SVCS in Czech Republic. Switzerland’s Meyer Burger AG is a leader in the band saw market. A major disadvantage is relatively higher kerf loss. in what is known as edge isolation. there remains a small handful of sawing equipment suppliers.Solar Energy Handbook Ingot and Wafer Sawing Band Saws. Inline furnace makers include American companies SierraTherm. and MRL in the U. Despatch and BTU. Slurry-based wire saws are always used to then process ingots into thin wafers for the construction of solar cells.S. In the U. and that damage caused by wire saws is removed. There has been growing demand for ingot slicing wire saws. 108 May 01. Market Players Although global wafer manufacturers are expanding production at record rates. etching is employed to separate front and back surface contacts along the edge. as they undergo the fabrication process. These diffusion furnaces have an outer tubular structure. Market Players It is difficult to determine market share for diffusion furnace manufacturers because sales numbers are rarely disclosed. Either a metal conveyor belt or ceramic rollers is used to transport wafers through a high temperature profile for the in-line diffusion of phosphorous dopant into silicon wafers on their way to assembly into solar cells. In FY2007. as well as Germany-based Centrotherm. 2009 . Band saws. Applied Materials entered the wet clean market with their innovative Oasis system several years ago. is likely still the largest. is believed to have gained considerable market share in both Japan and China. its market share rose to 86% from 74% the previous year. Nippei Toyama Corp. Etching In wafer fabrication.S. Diffusion In-line Furnace. and may be preferable for start-ups that want flexible cell process development.

and GT Solar in the United States. metallization being the application of contact metals on the front and back side of the solar cell. and Essemtec AG in Switzerland. and Europe. using the familiar vacuum coating process. efficiency level. are also becoming more popular as water and chemical waste disposal costs.. Anti-Reflective Coating The basic semiconductor material. can reflect more than 30% of the sunlight it is exposed to. Polysilicon plasma etching is believed to have many advantages over wet etching. which was acquired by Applied Materials in January 2008. as well as the demand for integrated in-line solutions for value chain equipment. Other dry etching processes. increases. Market Players Manufacturers with high-accuracy screen printing platforms include Italy’s Baccini. Screen Printers PV screen printing is the standard technique for metallization of solar cells in industrial fabrication. which introduced a new printer model with better throughput and advanced automated features in March 2008. it is essential for the module to be comprised of cells with simila r electrical characteristics. Wet etching for solar cell production is possible through the reaction between a liquid chemical and a solid substrate. and PSG removal. silicon. both in quality and cost value. Therefore. under simulated sunlight. including Spire Corp.Solar Energy Handbook Wet Etching. There are many solar cell tester and sorter equipment manufacturers on the market. resulting in thinner wafers and a reduction in breakage losses. at the end of the PV production line. the cells are evaluated. It may finally enable solar cell manufacturers to bridge the gap between diffusion and deposition processes. May 01. and Japan’s DEK. In general. using tiny strips of metal called stringers in a soldering process.S. Q-Cells and Singulus Technologies announced the development of a superior coating system. Testers & Sorters To achieve optimal cell efficiency.S. It is often the fastest and most costeffective way to remove material from the wafer. there are many different coating equipment providers throughout the U. with each batch holding the cells required to make a module. This is the role of cell testers and sorters. They are then divided into batches with similar characteristics. on a range of parameters—for instance. Dry Etching. 2009 109 . To improve a solar cell’s conversion efficiency. In March 2008. Other printer providers include Affiliated Manufacturers and Unichem Industries in the U. including saw damage removal. surface texturing. cell coating equipment serves to achieve surface passivation using silicon nitride (SiN). The stringers conduct the electricity produced by the cells. Tabber/stringer machines are used to interconnect these cells to form modules or panels. Tabbers & Stringers A single solar cell generates relatively low electric output.

EVA resin is manufactured by various chemical companies.Solar Energy Handbook Tabber/stringer machine makers include GT Solar and Spire Solar in the U. distinguished by the technology used to generate light: Steady State. This simulator measures VI curves by emitting a short pulse of light that lasts several milliseconds. but can result in more flawed measurements. It consumes much less energy than steady-state. allowing for slow and accurate currentvoltage (IV curve) measurements. 2009 . of modules. P. There are three categories. Germany’s largest PV laminator provider. Meier. For now. Market Players Two German companies. Meier Vakuumtechnik GmbH and newcomer Robert Bürkle GmbH. EVA is the dominant material used in encapsulation foils. has been advertising this concept since 2003. Figure 117: Tabber/Stringer Source: GT Solar Module Laminators Panel laminators encapsulate solar modules with controlled heat and pressure to form a homogeneous. P. SpireNisshinbo. as well as the study of light soaking effects. This production step ensures that the cell strings are protected from weathering for many years. Other major laminator manufacturers include Boostsolar. are expected to summon in the next generation of encapsulation equipment. and 3S Swiss Solar Systems. 110 May 01. environmentally stable structure. Energy in Italy. Hindivac. and other parameters.S. NCP in Japan. Energy. this simulator is characterized by a constant light source. such as DuPont or Kaneka Corp. NPC. Used primarily by testing institutions and R&D labs.. Single Pulse. Panel Simulators Simulators are essential for determining the electrical output. and SunWare GmbH in Germany.

2009 111 . only one discrete data point is measured. each lasting less than a millisecond.Solar Energy Handbook Multi Flash. Market Players Steady-state system manufacturers like Solaronix are gaining market share due to the large number of start-up thin-film companies that require light soaking tests. are becoming obsolete. Single-pulse remains the dominant design. During each flash. Multi-flash solar simulators. This is considered the least accurate method. and may increase in numbers with growth in solar concentrator modules. on the other hand. This simulator emits a sequence of very short flashes. May 01. not the complete IV curve. Berger Lichttechnik GmbH is a leader in this space.

17% Source: Barclays Capital estimates Figure 119: Thin Film Production Process Deposition Prepa re G lass Substr ate Depo sit Semicon ducto r L ayer s Re. the TCO layer is on top and light enters the cell from the semiconductor layer. In a glass substrate the TCO layer has to remain chemically stable during plasma deposition along with showing electrical and optical properties.crysta iza tion l Depos t Inte r-film Laye r i La ser Scr ibe F ront Conta ct Cell Insu lation Las er Scrib e Cell Iso a tion l Cell Defi nit ion Meta li a tion z Laser Scribe Re ar Co ntact I solation Post H at T rea tmen t e T est Assem bly & Test 100% Solar Simulat or & Curre nt Le akag e Te sting Ele ctrical L ead Asse mbly La mina te M odule Bu ssing Source: First Solar. Barclays Capital research TCO Machines The front contact of most thin film silicon solar cells is a transparent conductive oxide (TCO) layer. 33% TCO Machines .Solar Energy Handbook Thin Film Cell Equipment Market Breakdown Figure 118: Thin Film Cell Equipment Market Breakdown Back-end Testing. The amount of the layer depends on the substrate used. 25% Coaters . 2009 . 25% Las er Scribing . The optical qualities of the materials used affect the required thickness of the silicon absorber layer. 112 May 01. In opaque substrates. as it facilitates the absorption of the required amount of irradiation.

Leybold Optics provides equipment for special coatings for thin film cells. It is possible to fabricate entire modules using laser scribing. Applied Materials. The cells also need to be temperature tested to ensure that they do not degrade under slightly elevated temperatures. Oerlikon Solar provides laser patterning equipment. This is done in order to reduce the heating up of the solar modules. These isolated cells are then interconnected through laser welding to form the solar panels. The cells should also undergo testing to check for leakage. It is also essential to maintain smooth edges in the scribes. May 01. The major suppliers of CVD based TCO machines include Applied Materials. Laser Scribing Laser scribing is used to isolate individual solar cells. Modifications to the CVD technology include the use of plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) and atmospheric pressure chemical vapor deposition (APCVD). Scribe lines are of the order of tens of microns in width compared to cell widths of less then 10mm. 2009 113 . The conducting and semiconducting layers on the modules are also removed using the lasers. without recast debris as conversion efficiencies are affected by micro cracks in the cells. Ulvac and Von Ardenne also produce PECVD-based TCO machines. Cells need to be tested for impurities on the surface as surface contamination can affect the level of light absorbed. Laser scribing is seen as one of the key processes as it enables the production of highvolume next-generation thin-film devices. Coaters Solar cells are coated with an antireflective to reduce the amount of reflection of light of its surface. The solar cells and modules produced need to be tested to ensure that they will be able to work under not only normal but also extreme conditions. Leybold Optics and Oerlikon Solar. This is done to reduce the portion of light reflected of the cells surface and ensure that more of the light gets absorbed. Laser scribing is also used on the metal back contact layers on glass substrate. Despite this. Coaters are also used to apply antireflective such that it admits only the useful wavelengths while reflecting the rest. Solar simulators have now started to be used for testing cells to ensure consistency in the level of conversion efficiencies and to check their degradation over time and in effect the life of the cells. Chemical vapor deposition uses vapor phase chemical reaction to deposit thin film on a substrate. it is essential to reduce this further in order to maximize conversion efficiencies. Back-end Equipment for Testing Cells This is one of the most crucial steps in the production process.Solar Energy Handbook Most companies use chemical vapor deposition (CVD) to deposit the materials on the substrate. This deposition is done using the TCO machines. The other popular method is the use of physical vapor deposition (PVD). this deposits thin films by condensing vaporized material onto the substrate. leading to reduced conversion efficiencies for the cells and modules.

Solar Energy Handbook 114 May 01. 2009 .

Solar Energy Handbook Chapter 6: Solar Thermal Market May 01. 2009 115 .

Solar Energy Handbook Solar Thermal Background This source of energy is based on the fact that the sun heats up water contained in a dark vessel. central receiver. The technology has further scope as potential for further economies of scale is substantial due to the moderate penetration levels even in its large markets. Solar thermal plants are large utility-scale projects that generate enough power to serve tens of thousands of homes. South Africa and Mexico. As the heat can be stored. medium or high temperature.06-$0.05/kWh in the long term. Further advances are now being made in the technology. Iran.07/kWh in the medium term and $0. These plants supply an annual 800 million kWh at a generation cost of about $0. and power conversion. Nevada (USA). Algeria. The US Energy Information Agency characterizes solar thermal collectors as low. High temperature collectors are used for electric power generation through concentrating the incident sunlight using mirrors or lenses. Israel. receiver. day or night in any weather. Domestic water heating is the most common use of the solar thermal technology worldwide. Thus. This is called concentrated solar power (CSP). Morocco. The three most common solar thermal technologies are: parabolic trough. Solar thermal power plants follow the concept of CSP and use sunlight to produce steam. Solar thermal is currently one of the most cost effective sources of renewable energy. They represent the most mature solar thermal power technology. these plants are unique because they can generate power when it is needed. with utility. India. storage. 2009 . Their power is usually sold to public utilities.07-$0. Solar thermal technologies can also provide solar energy for other applications such as space heating in residential and commercial buildings and solar assisted cooling. which is then used to generate electricity. with 354 MWe of plants connected to the Southern California grid since the 1980s and more than 2 million square meters of parabolic trough collectors.17/kWh. Egypt. 116 May 01. Solar thermal technology requires the following four main elements: concentrator. Greece. which then sell it to its customers. Parabolic trough systems use trough-shaped mirror reflectors to concentrate sunlight on to receiver tubes through which a thermal transfer fluid (typically oil) is heated to roughly 400oC and then used to produce superheated steam. Combined with gas-fired combined cycle plants—so-called ISCC (Integrated Solar Combined Cycle) systems—power generation costs are expected to be in the order of $0.08/kWh in the medium term.14$0.scale projects planned in Spain. Italy. The low and medium collectors are used to heat water for domestic and other basic uses. the energy is harvested from the heat directly from the sun. and parabolic dish. Electricity from trough plants is thus expected to fall to $0.

or it is stored for days before conversion. solar tower developers are confident that grid connected tower power plants can be built up to a capacity of 200 MWe solar-only units with power generation costs then comparable to those of parabolic troughs. Barclays Capita l research Central receiver: A power tower system uses a large field of mirrors. 2009 117 . Use of thermal storage will also increase flexibility. Following completion of the first 10 MWe PS-10 demonstration tower plants. May 01. and with further scaling up to 30–50 MW capacity. In the future. The anticipated evolution of total electricity costs is that they will drop to $0. called heliostats. There a receiver sits. Although central receiver plants are considered to be further away from commercialization than parabolic trough systems. we expect central receiver plant projects should benefit from similar cost reductions to those expected from parabolic trough plants.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 120: Parabolic Trough Technology from East Sunpath to West Par abolic Mir ror Heat Collec ting Element Dir ect Normal Ra diation D rive Motor Source: Abengoa Solar. solar towers have good long-term prospects for high conversion efficiencies.05/kWh in the long term. to concentrate sunlight onto the top point of a tower. currently under construction in Spain.07/kWh in the medium term and to $0. This heat is then used to produce electricity through a conventional steam generator. Projects are under construction in Spain and under preparation in South Africa. and the molten salt that is inside it is heated.

Barclays Capital research Parabolic dish systems are comparatively small units which use a dish-shaped reflector to concentrate sunlight.20/kWh. depending on the solar resource. The heat causes the fluid to expand against a piston or turbine. Australia. 2009 . with increasing use of a storage medium such as molten salt.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 121: Central Receiver Technology Source: European Solar Energy Association. Current trends show that two broad pathways have opened up for large-scale delivery of electricity using solar thermal power. with superheated fluid being used to generate power in a small engine at the focal point of the reflector. Projects are currently planned in the United States. and Europe. A dish/engine system is an electric generator that “burns” sunlight instead of gas or coal. which transfers the energy to fluid within a heat engine/generator. One is the ISCC-type hybrid operation of solar collection and heat transfer combined with a conventional power plant. 118 May 01. standalone power systems.15-$0. The other is solar-only operation. This enables solar energy collected during the day to be stored then dispatched when demand requires. which is then used to run a generator that makes electricity output possible. In terms of electricity costs. The large dish-shaped surface collects and concentrates the sun’s direct heat into a cavity receiver. Their potential lies primarily in decentralized power supply and remote. an attainable near-term goal is a figure of less than $0. producing mechanical power.

May 01. thereby maintaining continuous turbine operation. The second advantage is that solar thermal plants can be designed for solar only or for hybrid operation.08/kWh in the future. Finally.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 122: Parabolic Dish Technology Receiver Concentrator Source: Research Institute for Sustainable Energy. Solar thermal generation costs in California range between $0. Steam can now be produced directly from solar energy by attaching solar boilers to the solar thermal panels.07–$0. concrete. solar energy collected during the day can also be stored in liquid or solid medium such as molten salts. the costs of solar thermal electricity are lower than that of photovoltaic technology and further cost reductions are likely. ceramic or phase changing salt mixtures. Technological Advancements The glass mirrors used have gone to flat from curved and are thus less expensive. Limitations Solar thermal technology requires direct sunlight and as a result.14 and $0. Solar heat can be extracted from the storage medium at night.17/kWh today and are expected to decline to between $0. 2009 119 . Barclays Capital research Advantages The primary advantage of solar thermal technology is that it offers heat storage capability— unlike photovoltaic technology. power plants are usually cited in regions with high direct solar radiation. where a fossil fuel can be used in case of lower radiation intensity to secure reliable peak-load supply.

Both these plants are scheduled to start operations in 2011 and help Florida reach its target of 20% energy through wind and solar.000 people in 2007 at 32kW followed by Austria (23.000 people. Germany continued to be the largest market in Europe but growth shrank 37% in 2007 to 658MW of new capacity. Other major projects include Solar Partners’ 400MW plant in California. Major Solar Thermal Projects Brightsource Energy and Pacific Gas & Electric are building one of the largest solar thermal plants in the Mojave Desert in the United States. The European Solar Thermal market grew by 9% in 2007. China continues to have significant scope to grow due to its low penetration levels.000 people in 2007 bringing its total solar thermal capacity in operation to 30. 2009 . China is by far the largest market but is almost entirely driven by solar water heaters which have flourished without any government incentives. and a 250MW plant in the Mojave Desert. The Mojave Desert is also home to the over 500MW plant being built by Solel in collaboration with Pacific Gas & Electric and the over 300MW plant being built by Florida Power & Light and Southern California Edison.8kW per 1.7kW) and Greece (17. Major Demand Centers The solar thermal market is dominated by China. Despite this.7kW per 1.7kW). reaching 1. Europe. The total installed capacity in China is estimated to have been more than 50GWth in 2007 with over 30 million households expected to have a solar water heater.4 GW. The other major markets in Europe were Austria with 197MW and Spain with 183MW of new capacity. USA. 120 May 01. Europe’s per capita capacity was 3. which is nearly a fourth of the cost in Europe. A major reason for the popularity of solar water systems in China is because of their low capital cost.Solar Energy Handbook The steam is also at a much higher temperature and is thus more effective and efficient in producing electricity. The 500MW concentrated solar power plant is expected to start operations in 2011. Cyprus continued to have the highest installations per 1. the 280MW plant being built by Abengoa in Arizona. Florida Power & Light has a 300MW plant in Florida. Spain is currently one of the largest solar thermal plants and is expected to increase in size to 300MW by 2013. Mirrors reflecting sunlight move in two dimensions instead of one thereby absorbing sunlight more effectively. Japan.9GW of new capacity with total capacity reaching 15. The 11MW plant in Seville. Stirling energy is also building a 500MW plant in the Mojave Desert in collaboration with San Diego Gas & Electric. and India. and a 250MW plant being planned by Israel in the Negev Desert. The plant which will use parabolic dishes is also expected to begin operations in 2011.

ROI required by investors. We believe CSP is an especially attractive renewable energy option for large-scale power generation in the Southwest. The Solar Program May 01. for greater dispatch of power. are located.S. production using this method can be much more closely aligned with periods of peak demand. materials procurement. 10% Austria. 9% Spain . 17% Germany. Although the DOE has identified power towers as the lowest-cost CSP technology. Several other factors can intervene with cost goals. and currency exchange rates. 10% Source: ESTIF. 10% Greece. The scaling-up of plant and project sizes. Barclays Capital research Concentrating solar power systems are applied in centralized power productions. 35% Italy. even if technical targets are met. The abundance of sunshine in these areas provide flexibility in building solar plants close to existing or planned transmission lines. and manufacturing. making it easier to dispatch the generated power when it is needed.S. cost of commodity materials. They convert the sun’s energy into heat first.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 123: European Solar Thermal Market (2007) Rest of Europe. Performance improvement is desired for system components like concentrators and solar receivers. then mechanical power. Further growth is highly dependent upon the duration and parameters of the Investment Tax Credit. Solar intermittency problems are alleviated with thermal storage or hybridization with natural gas. and finally electricity using conventional generators. More relia bility is needed to reduce hig h operation and maintenance expenses. These include: developer’s real cost of capital. difficulty of getting construction approval. where 15 of the 20 fastest-growing metro areas in the U. 9% France. 2009 121 . they have been absent from the country’s solar R&D portfolio for the last five years. Volume production can also help to bring down outlays through standardization of engineering. Although CSP produced energy currently costs more than other renewable resources like wind. is anticipated. The year 2007 was pivotal for solar CSP development with 65 MW of parabolic-trough systems brought on line in the U. Technical and Market Challenges The CSP technologies described above primarily face capital cost reduction challenges.

While the Southwest holds adequate resources. Taxation of solar energy equipment as real property further increases the cost of using this particular renewable energy source. No commercial dish-engine or power tower system has ever been built in the states. although two years ago an 11 MW tower began operation in Spain. is relatively low. no commercial solar thermal electric systems had seen installation since 1991. Two parabolictrough systems were completed last year. 122 May 01. CSP systems require direct sunlight. and instead focused resources on the other two CSP categories where large projects were in the works. where three more power towers are under construction. Also. while energy from the sun is deemed “free fuel.S. power towers.Solar Energy Handbook stopped funding this area due to non-existing activity in U.” the cost of conversion equipment is high but necessary for the commercial production of electricity. Until 2006. the limitations of transmission capacity restrict the amount of power that can be exported to other regions of the country. 2009 . At present. the number of installed systems in the U.S.

Solar Energy Handbook Chapter 7: Key Solar PV Markets May 01. 2009 123 .

50/kWh of feed-in tariff on solar PV electricity for 20 years. for systems greater than 40 square miles. Mainly in the form of feed-in tariffs. government incentives have favored strong market growth and sustained the development of the photovoltaic industry that currently generates 0. when it sponsored a 100. The German government’s support for solar industry started in 1999.000 MW of cumulated capacity. respectively. In addition. in addition to low-interest financing. 124 May 01. with low interest loans and 30% capital cost subsidies. This program resulted in a tenfold increase in solar installed capacity.000-rooftop program that offered EUR0. from about 13% currently. The government’s goal is to generate about 27% and 45% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and 2030. With 6. The tariff program was revised in 2004.Solar Energy Handbook Germany Government support has propelled Germany into the biggest solar market. further stimulating the market with annual solar installations tripling to 540MW in 2004 from 170MW in 2003. Germany introduced new incentives for large-scale solar hot-water installations.8% of the country’s electricity. Germany remains the largest market for solar PV systems. 2009 .

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 124:German Incentive Program
Feed In Tariff <= 30 kW Degression ct/kWh Rate 46.75 8% 8% 9% 43.01 39.57 36.01 8% 8% 9% Rooftop > 30 kW > 100 kW Degression Degression ct/ kWh ct/kWh Rate Rate 44.48 40.91 37.64 34.25 10% 10% 9% 43.99 39.58 35.62 32.42 25% 10% 9% > 1,000 kW Degression ct/kWh Rate 43.99 33 29.7 27.03 10% 10% 9% Ground Mounted All Sizes Degressi on ct/kWh Rate 35.49 31.94 28.75 26.16

2008 2009 2010 2011

FIT are granted for 20 years If the growth of the PV market (new installations) in a year is stronger or weaker than the defined growth corridor, the degression in the foll owi ng year will increase or decrease a percentage point respectivel y. Degression A bove: +1% Below: -1% 2009 1500 100 2010 1700 1100 2011 1900 1200

Upper limit in MWp Lower limit in MWp

Tax Credits

Further Support Programs Investment costs for commercial systems (incl. Planning and installation) can be depreciated over a 20 year period and other costs can be considered as operations cost Commercial systems are VAT exempted (VAT is at 19% in Germany) In exceptional cases for some commercial systems which operate closely to producing or manufacturing facilities 12,527,5 % of invest ment can be claimed as t ax credit KFW P rogram “Solarstrom Erzeugen” (No. 140) f or private investors: Up to 100% invest, max €50. 000, up t o 10 years with 1-2 years free of redemption or up t o 20 years with up to 3 years free of redemption at nominal int erest rates of 4,15-4,45% depending on duration, except investors under direct supervision of local authorities

KFW “ERP-Umwelt- und Energiesparprogramm” for commercial investors: 50% for SME s, other companies up to 35% of Beneficial max. €500.000 invest (in old f ederal stat es) alt ernatively € 1 Mio. Invest (in new f ederal stat es), duration 10 years with 2 Credi t Terms years free of redemption (in old federal states) alternatively 15 years with 5 years free of redemption , nominal int erest rates between 4-7% (depending on location, duration and credit risk evaluation) “KFW Umweltprogramm” for commercial investors: 75% of invest of max €10 mio. per I nstallation 96% net payment, up to 20 years duration, with up to 3 years free of redemption, nominal interest rates between 4-7, 72% Investment Grant Some regional programs exist

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

Figure 125: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW)

Figure 126: Solar Electricity per Capita
250 S olar El ect ricit y P er Capit a (W/ person) 12. 0%

3000

200 S olar as % of Renewables

10. 0%

8.0% 150

1500
100

6.0%

4.0% 50

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E
0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

2.0%

0.0%

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

125

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 127: Elec tricity Market Breakup

Figure 128: Solar Penetration
6.0% % Household P enet rati on

Nuclear, 8%

5.0%

S olar as % of Overall E lectrici ty

Conventional Thermal, 23%

4.0%

3.0%

2.0%

Solar, wind, etc, 69%
1.0%

0.0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Source: Eurostat, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

126

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Spain With among the highest solar insolation in Europe and favorable legal and fiscal incentives, Spain was the fastest-growing sizable solar PV market in 2008. The Spanish government incentives are fixed for the first 25 years of operation and decrease 20% thereafter. Figure 129: Spain Incentive Program
Power Plan Limit Size Type 1 - Rooftop Type 1 - Cap F eed in Tariffs Type II - Gro und Mo unted To tal Cap 10MW 0.32 €/kWh < 20 kW > 20 kW 2MW Tariff 2009 0.34 €/kWh 0.32 €/kWh Cap 2009 27 MW 240 MW 267 MW 233 MW (133+100) 500 C ap 2010 30 MW 265 MW 295 MW 207 MW (133+60) 502 Cap 2011 33 MW 292 MW 325 MW 162 MW 488

Tariff and Cap Variation

Tariffs and caps are adjusted quarterly according to demand in previous quarter: If at least 75% of the cap for the previous quarter is reached, rates decrease by a maximum of 2.5%, and the cap is increased by the same amount. Conversely, if less than 50% of the cap is reached, rates increase and caps decrease by the same amount. If between 50 and 75% of the caps are reached, incentive levels and caps remain the same. The annual digression rate is capped at 10%. Annual caps adjust in inverse proportion to digression (e. g. If rates decrease by 8%, caps will increase by 8%). Law 35/2006 establishes a tax rebate of 6% (2008), 4% (2009), 2% (2010) from the annual benefits of the PV system.

Tax Incentives

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

Figure 130: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW)
1500

Figure 131: Solar Electricity per Capita
12 0 So lar Elect ricity Per Cap ita (W/p ers on) 7. 0% 10 0 So lar as % of Re newa bles 6. 0% 80 5. 0% 60 4. 0% 3. 0% 2. 0% 20 1. 0% 8. 0%

1200 900 600 300 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E
40

0 200 2 200 3 2 004 20 05 20 06 200 7 2 008 200 9E 2 010 E 2 011E 20 12E

0. 0%

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

127

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 132: Elec tricity Market Breakup

Figure 133: Solar Penetration
3 .0% % House hold Pen etra tion So lar as % of O v rall Ele ctr icity e

2 .5%

Nuclear, 18%

Solar, wind, etc, 19%

2 .0%

1 .5%

1 .0%

0 .5%

0 .0% 20 02 2 003 20 04 2 005 200 6 2 007 200 8 20 09E 2 010E 20 11E 2 012 E

C onventional

Source: Eurostat, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

128

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

United States The federal investment tax credit (ITC) was extended in October 2008 for eight years. The bill removed the $2,000 cap for residential installations, and allows public utilities to take advantage of the federal incentives. Furthermore, the new proposal eliminates the public utility exemption to the ITC and allows the credits to be taken against the alternative minimum tax (AMT). In February 2009, Congress passed an economic stimulus package that included support for solar installations. The stimulus provided incentives for the production of green technologies in the United States, as well as providing a 30% grant to install renewable energy systems such as solar. In addition to the support at the federal level, the states and municipal governments provide rebates for PV system purchases and have a feed-in tariff system established in states such as Washington. Net metering is available in 42 states across the country. Most of these states offer statewide net metering for all utility types. In addition, some 26 states have already implemented renewable portfolio standards in a market-driven approach to ensure a minimum and growing percentage of electricity to be sourced from renewables. These include Nevada (20% by 2015), New Jersey (22.5% by 2021), and Colorado (20% by 2020). There is a provision for solar in the renewables policy, with Nevada planning 1% solar by 2015, New Jersey planning 2.12% by 2021, and Colorado 0.8% by 2020. The bottom line is that we believe statewide solar programs are likely to make the U.S. one of the fastest-growing markets over the next three to five years. Figure 134: U.S. Market Annual Solar PV Ins tallations (MW)
140 120 100 80 60 40
27 39 18 22 15 13 4 4 3 3 3 4 2 3 1 2 1 1 97 1 16 2007 200 8

20 0

i

a

rn ia

o

a

rs ey

aw ai

ct i cu

on

ts

k

ad

ad

Yo r

se t

al if o

ol or

N ev

ew

on ne

Ne

N

C

Source: Barclays Capital research, Photon International

May 01, 2009

M as

sa c

C

C

O re

A r iz

Je

hu

w

H

go

n

t

129

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 135: U.S. Incentives
United States: % of States having introduced incentives Net Metering Direct Incentives Sales/Property Tax Loan Tax Credit
Source: DSIRE

82% 80% 64% 46% 34%

Figure 136: Renewable Portfolio Standard Incentives
State Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Delaware D.C. Hawai Illinois Iowa Maine Maryland Massachusetts Minnesota Montana Nevada New Ham pshire New Jersey New Mexico N ew York North C arolina Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island Texas W ashington W isconsin Total Generation Requirement By When '07
(' 000 kWh)

104,392,528* 490,795,218 205,960,167 53,756,522 7,182,179* 81,467* 11,960,090 197,795,429 89,007,047 30,196,422 252,759,444 79,574,968 70,259,509 348,007,286 65,130,407 46,536,608 66,303,400 27,632,793 1,418,258,950 322,801,400 867,839,634 435,900,727 8,175,579 350,862,367 2,076,777,949 130,525,091

15% 20% 20% 23% 20% 11% 20% 25% 105 MW 30% 9.5% 4% 25% 15% 20% 25% 22.5% 20% 25% 12.5% 25% 18% 16% 5,580 MW 15% 10%

2025 2010 2020 2020 2019 2022 2020 2025 2022 2009 2025 2015 2015 2025 2021 2020 2013 2021 2025 2020 2019 2015 2020 2015

* Does not include hydro. Source: Barclays Capital research, DSIRE

130

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 137: Renewable Portfolio Standards
MN: 25% by 2025 *WA: 15% by 2020
ND: 10 % by 20 15 (Xcel: 30 % by 2020)
VT: (1) RE m eets any inc reas e in ret ail s al es by 2012; (2) 20% by 2017

ME : 30% by 2000
10% by 2017 - new RE

☼ NH: 23.8% in 2025
MA: 4% by 2009 +
1% annual increase

OR: 25% by 2025 (large util ities)
5% - 10% by 2025 (small er uti li ties)

M T: 15% by 2015
SD: 10% by 2015

WI: requirement varies by utilit y; 10% by 2015 goal

RI: 16% by 2020 CT: 23% by 2020

☼ *NV: 20% by 2015
* UT: 20% by 2025

IA: 105 MW IL: 25% by 2025
MO : 11% by 2020

☼ NY: 24% by 2013 ☼ NJ: 22.5% by 2021 ☼ PA: 18%¹ by 2020 ☼ M D: 9.5% in 2022 ☼ *DE: 20% by 2019 ☼ DC: 11% by 2022
*VA: 12% b y 2022

CA: 20% by 2010

☼ CO: 20% by 2020 (I OUs) *10% by 2020 (co-ops & large muni s)

☼ NC: 12.5% by 2021 ☼ AZ: 15% by 2025 ☼ NM : 20% by 2020 (IOUs)
10% by 2020 (co-ops)

(I OUs) 10% b y 2018 (co -ops & m unis)

TX: 5,880 MW by 2015 HI: 20% by 2020 ☼ Minimum solar or custo mer-sited RE requirement * Increased credit for solar o r custo mer-sited RE ¹PA: 8 % Tier I / 10 % Tier II (includes non-renewables)
Sta te RPS Sta te Go al So la r water hea ting e ligible

Source: DSIRE

Figure 138: Net Metering Rules
100 50
25/2,000

* * 25 * 2,000 *

100 * 40

VT: 250

1 00

*

25/100

* 20 *

1,000 1,000

* * 25/2,000

* 500
100

30
no limit

40 10 *

*

15

* *

25 20/100

varies 80,000

100 * 25/300

*

* 50

10/100 25/100

NY: PA : NJ: DE: MD: DC: VA:

10/25/125/400 50/3,000/5,000* 2,000* 25/500/2,000* 2,000 100 10/500*

100
(KIUC: 50)

FL: 2,000*

S ta te-wid e net metering for a ll utility typ es

*

S ta te-wid e net metering for certain u tili ty types only (e .g., in vestor-owned utilities) c ertain utili investor-owned N et metering o ff ered voluntarily by one or more ind ividual utilities ffered volun tarily

Net metering is available in 42 states + D.C.

(Note: Numbers indicate individual sys tem s iz e limit in kilowatts. Some states’ limits vary by c ustomer type and/or technology)

Source: DSIRE

May 01, 2009

131

Solar Energy Handbook Figure 139: State Incentives for PV Projects State Alabama Alaskak Arizona Arkansas Cal ifornia Col orado Connecticut Del aware F lorida G eorgi a Hawaii Idaho Illi nois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Loui si ana Maine Maryl and Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississi ppi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota O hio O kl ahoma O regon Pennsyl vani a Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota T ennessee T exas Utah Vermont Virgini a W ashington W est Virgini a W isconsin W yoming √ √ Resid ential Direct In centive √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Resid ential T ax Credit 25% $1. $250k IEB Non-Profit/Government Loan HELP (Residential): 2%.500 20-25% incremental cost(mul ti fam.95% 5-15yrs.99% $10K 10 yrs DECD (Smal l Business): 0% .5% 10 yrs Aspen (Residential): 0% 5 yrs Gunnison: $25k 10 yrs 5% CHIF (Residential): 1%-6% 10 years DPUC: financing terms vary > 50kW Sati lla RBMC (Resi dential): $25k for 10 yrs IDWR Loan: 4% for 5yrs.): $10K mi nimum 7yrs NYSERDA: 4% below market 10 yrs (Non-residential ) SELP 4.20M Regional Clean Energy Funds Keystone (Residential): 6.$20K 1.8. Grays Harbor Ferry County PUD(Residenti al) Kli ckitat PUD(Residenti al) WPPI (Participating Municipalities) $2. $600k MEA State Agency Loan: 0% MDA Business Loan 3% < prime 85% $300k 7 years DNR Non-profit/Government Loan AERLP: 5% $40k 10yrs Energy Loan: 50% rate reduction $175K 10 yrs NHBRC (Com.000 25% 3.000 100% deduction $20. $100k √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ AERLP: 50% rate reducti on over 20 years.9-6.000 25% $5.3% $300K 7 yrs Clall um Cty (Residential). $6k MEA Community Loan: 3% for 7 yrs.5K .000 50% $12.000 PV i n multi fam.000 35% $5. 2009 .99% 10yrs EILP: 1% 10 yrs $500K √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Source: DSIRE.000 √ Non -residen tial Direct Incen tive √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Commercial Tax Credit Net Meterin g Sales Tax Prop erty Tax Lo an Local Government Loan SMUD: 7. $20K .000 $500 30% $9.750 25% 2. green building: $3/W maximum 35% 10.99% . Barclays Capital research 132 May 01.500 15% $3/W 50% $6. Clark PUD(Residenti al) Frankl in Ci ty (Residenti al). green buildi ng) 15% $1.

2009 133 . 5% % Household Penetrat ion 0.4 % 5 0. 40% 0.0 % 3000 2000 1000 20 15 0.0 % 20 02 2 00 3 2 004 20 05 20 06 200 7 2 008 20 09 E 201 0E 2 011 E 20 12 E 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E 0 Source: US Solar Energy Association. Barclays Capital estimates May 01. 1% Petroleum. 7% Coal. 1% 0. Barclays Capital estimates Figure 142: Elec tricity Market Breakup Renewable (In cl Hydro). 22% Nuclear.2 % 0.2 % 1.6 % 1. 23% 0.8 % 0. 3% 0. 0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E Source: EIA.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 140: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW) 4000 Figure 141: Solar Electricity per Capita 30 Sola r E lect ric ity Per Ca pita ( W/ per so n) 25 Sola r a s % o f Re newa ble s 1. 2% Natural Gas.6 % 10 0.4 % 1. 4% S olar as % of Overall Elect ric ity 0. Barclays Capital estimates Source: EIA. 8% Figure 143: Solar Penetration 0. Barclays Capital estimates Source: EIA. 2% 0. 3% 0. 4% 0.

8GW by 2010 from less than 2GW in 2008. 3% Nuc lear. Recently the Japanese government announced a plan to reinstate its solar subsidy program. 5% 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E 0. 5% 300 15 10 5 1. 0% 0. Figure 144: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW) 900 Figure 145: Solar Electricity per Capita 40 35 30 S olar Elect ricit y P er Capit a (W/person) S olar as % of Renewables 3.50)/kWh. Barclays Capital estimates Source: EIA. 0% 1.0% Thermal.0% Hydro. 5% 600 25 20 2. 0% 2.0% % Household Penetration 2. 71% 0. wind. The plan is expected to be introduced by 2010 at the latest. 0% Source: US Solar Energy Association.5% 0. etc. 7% 1. The current plan is for utilities to purchase surplus electricity at ¥50/kWh (about $0. High grid electricity rates as a result of lack of domestic energy resources (Japan imports 75%–80% of energy) and directed government incentives have historically resulted in strong growth of solar installations in Japan. 2009 .5% Solar as % o f Overall El ectri city Solar.Solar Energy Handbook Japan The Japanese government’s target is to increase solar installed capacity to 4. Barclays Capital estimates 134 May 01. Barclays Capital estimates Source: EIA.5% 1.0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2 007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E Source: EIA. Government support for solar PV has been in the form of subsidies. Barclays Capital estimates Figure 146: Elec tricity Market Breakup Figure 147: Solar Penetration 3. 19% 2. representing more than 140% growth.

0% 0.Solar Energy Handbook South Korea Government targets 1. The government also provides support to the PV industry through joint R&D projects coordinated by the Korean Development Organization (KPVDO) since 2004.0% 1.0% 50 5.3/kWh €0.3GW of PV installed capacity by 2011 (cumulative installed capacity was less than 100MW in 2008). Barclays Capital estimates May 01. In addition.0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E 0 Source: Solarbuzz.0% 2.35/kWh €0.30/kWh for systems greater than 3MW.200kW 200kW 1MW 1MW . South Korea’s government has set a target of 5% energy generation from renewables (compared with approximately 1% in 2007) and 1. South Korea has a feed-in tariff of EUR0. 2009 135 .3 MW > 3MW €0.0% 6.40/kWh for less than 30KW systems all the way up to EUR0. new public buildings larger than 3.32/kWh €0.000m² are required to spend 5% of the total budget on installation of renewable facility.34/kWh €0.0% 7. Figure 148: South Korean Feed-In Tariff Program Period 15 Years 20 Years <30 kW 30.35/kWh €0.27/kWh Note: Tariffs in €/kWh. 0% 9. Barclays Capital estimates Source: EIA.4/kWh €0.0% 1500 80 70 60 Solar as % of R enewables 1000 500 30 20 10 3. Solarbuzz Figure 149: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW) Figure 150: Solar Electricity per Capita 90 Solar Elect ric it y Per Capit a (W/ pers on) 10. numbers converted from Korean Won to Euros Source: Barclays Capital research.3GW of PV capacity by 2011.39/kWh €0.0% 40 4.37/kWh €0.0% 8.37/kWh €0.

0% S olar a s % of Overa ll Ele ct ricit y 2. 37% 1. 5% 2. 2009 . 0% 3. Barclays Capital estimates Source: EIA. 5% Thermal.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 151: Elec tricity Market Breakup Figure 152: Solar Penetration 3. wind. Barclays Capital estimates 136 May 01. 0% 1. 5% Nuclear. 5% % Hou se hold Pe net ra tion Solar. 62% 0. 1% Source: EIA. 0% 0. 0% 2 00 2 20 03 2 00 4 200 5 20 06 200 7 20 08 20 09E 20 10 E 201 1E 2 012 E Hydro. etc.

30 €/kW h The government does subsidize “green loans” through financial institutions. In addition.3% in 2005 to 20% by 2020. the French government paved the way to rapid growth in PV installations. with 80% of these in homes. not cu mulative with FIT).Solar Energy Handbook France Government offers attractive feed-in tariff scheme with a special bonus for BIPV installations and a n income tax credit for private individuals. Figure 153: South Korean Feed-In Tariff Program Continental F rance Granting Perio d Roof Top an d G roun d Mo unted Feed in T ariff BIPV Commercia l Cap Other In fo rmatio n Ben eficia l Credit Terms 0. max 8. The exact terms of the green loans vary pe r insti tution but interest rates fa ll between 3 and 5% over 5-10 years (20 in some ca ses). which at times represents approximately 50% of the solar module investments (excluding labor costs). 2009 137 .000 MW by 2020.45 €/kW h Installed peak capacity x 1500 full load hoursT hereafter 0. Private tax reduction of 50% on material costs at mai n residence.55/kWh subsidy is still provided for Building Integrated throughout France. Solarbuzz May 01. System si ze < 3 kWp (if > 3 kWp. A EUR0. Tax Credit Tax In centives Reduced VAT Source: Barclays Capital research. The European Union has further increased this target to 23% by 2020. In addition to the feed-in tariffs. The current feed-in ta riff program favors BIPV systems. Reduced VAT (5. especially in the south and in overseas territories. The majority of the large-scale installations take place in overseas territories and the south of France (where average insolation is greater than it is in the rest of the country).45/kWh. The primary incentive mechanism in France is in the form of a feed-in tariff for a duration of 20 years.05 €/kWh Tariff annually revised on inflation 20 Years 0.5%) on material and installation cost. with the annual tariff increase pegged to inflation. With what we believe is an attractive feed-in tariff scheme. combined with a special bonus for building integrated PV (BIPV) installations and an income tax credit for private individuals. The government plans to increase the installed capacity for PV power to 3. Accommodation is more than 2-year and system size < 3 kW p.55 €/kW h 0. France recently increased subsidies for commercial buildings to EUR0. 5 million solar thermal units are to be installed in buildings by 2020.000 € for si ngles and 16.000 € for coupl es. val id until end of 2012. France benefits from very favorable solar irradiation conditions. France is making a renewed effort to increase the renewable share of the country’s total energy consumption from 10. the small private system market receives a 50% income tax credit.

5 % 1000 800 600 400 200 25 20 15 0 . 12% Figure 157: Solar Penetration 0 .7 % % Ho us eho ld Pe ne tra tion 0 .4 % 10 0 .1 % 0 0 .Solar Energy Handbook Figure 154: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW) Figure 155: Solar Electricity per Capita 30 So lar Ele ct ric ity Pe r C ap ita (W /p er son ) So lar a s % o f Re ne wab les 0 .2 % 5 0 .4 % 0 . Barclays Capital estimates Source: EIA. 77% 0 .2 % 0 .8 % 0 . etc.0 % 200 2 2 00 3 20 04 20 05 20 06 2 00 7 20 08 2 00 9E 2 01 0E 20 11 E 20 12E 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E Source: Solarbuzz. wind.7 % 0 . Barclays Capital estimates 138 May 01.6 % Sola r a s % of Over all Ele ctr icit y 0 .3 % 0 .9 % 0 . Barclays Capital estimates Figure 156: Elec tricity Market Breakup Solar. Barclays Capital estimates Source: EIA. 11% 0 . 2009 .0 % 200 2 2 003 20 04 200 5 2 006 20 07 200 8 20 09E 201 0E 2 011 E 20 12E Source: Eurostat.3 % 0 .1 % Nuclear.5 % Conventional Thermal.6 % 0 .

which is inspired by the German model. is aimed to provide tariffs until a cap of 1. Some of the measures taken are as follows: 1) All partially/fully integrated systems and installations below 20KW are no longer subject to environmental impact assessment and authorization process. 2009 139 . and projects receive fixed remuneration for the first 20 years. The primary incentive program is what we believe to be an attractive feed-in tariff.2GW is reached. 2) Developers are no longer required to wait for long periods to receive accession rights from the Gas and Electric Authority. The tariffs are declining 2% every year for new applications. The government has simplified the process of accessing the grid by the introduction of the new program in February 2007. This new program.Solar Energy Handbook Italy Italy’s goal is to reach 3GW of installed capacity by the end of 2016. May 01. The Italian government’s goal is to reach 3GW of solar PV installed capacity by the end of 2016. We believe large IPP projects and medium-large commercial systems offer strong potential in the near term. which was implemented in February 2007.

The pric e that will be applied will be an average of the values of the national prices per area (prezzi zonali orari). the plants that will enter into force no later than 14 months .after the reaching of the cap they will benefit from both the tariffs and the premium. in terms of electricity.for private owners .44 €/kWh 0. Bonuses.44 €/kWh BAPV 0. . and so on for the forthcoming years. consumed and not consumed but fed into the grid.49 €/kWh 0.and 24 months .36 €/kWh Cap The maximum cumulative power supportable is 1200 MW. Is based on a balance of the value of the electricity produced. However.20 kWp > 20 kWp 0.public schools and public health c enters.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 158:Italian Solar Incentives BIPV Feed In Tariff 1-3 kWp > 3 . .000 MW by 2016. 2009 . Bonuses on top of the FIT Other Infor mation 2% degression of 2008 tariffs starting from 2009. Increase in the energy efficiency: If the consumption of energy of the building is reduced by at least 10% . The big change consists in the payment of the obtained credits by the GSE. This can lead to a surplus on behalf of the system operator that will be holder of a credit.Installations integrated to building substituting asbestos roofs .the electricity producer if he/she uses at least 70% of the electricity generated.000 inhabitants.40 €/kWh 0.for public owners . that is refundable. Source: EPIA. within 1 year.Municipalities with less than 5. Barclays Capital research 140 May 01.38 €/kWh 0.42 €/kWh 0. but not exceeding 30% of the standard tariff. Reduction of VAT from 20% to 10% Reduction in property tax that amounts to less than 4 per mille Owner of plants producing renewable electricity may decide to sell it. . FIT payment duration fix for 20 years Further Suppor t Program s Net Metering: (Alternative to the sell of electricity and cumulative with FIT) Tax Credits Net-metering does not provide for direct payments. The target set by the government is 3. cumulative with FIT) Direct Sell .40 €/kWh Non Integr ated 0.46 €/kWh 0. Three options are available: Sell of the Electricity (Alternative to net-metering and Indirect Sell: Convention with the GSE (Italian Authority in charge of the Photovoltaic incentives system).Sell it to the "electric stock exchange" or to a wholesaler Other Information From January 2009 the net metering system will change significantly. equal to a 5% premium are provided in these cases: . not cumulative. an increase in the incentive tariff is awarded in a percentage equal to half of the percentage of electricity saved.

Barclays Capital estimates 0.0% 1.0% 2.5% 1.5% Conventional Thermal 84% Source: Eurostat.0% S olar as % of Renewables 5.0% 0.0% 50 4.0% 2.0% 40 1800 80 1200 60 600 30 20 3. etc 16% 3.5% 2.5% % Household Penetr a on ti S ola as % of Ov r erall E le ric ct ity 3. Barclays Capital estimates May 01.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 159: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW) Figure 160: Solar Electricity per Capita 90 8. Barclays Capital estimates Figure 161: Elec tricity Market Breakup Figure 162: Solar Penetration 4.0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E 10 0 Source: Solarbuzz.0% 7.0% 1.0% Solar. 2009 141 . Barclays Capital estimates Source: EIA.0% 2002 2003 200 4 200 5 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E Source: EIA.0% S olar Elect ric ity Per Capit a (W /person) 70 6. wind.0% 0.

150 kWp on own ground do not require an operating license. which is guaranteed for 20 years. The new proposal which was submit ted to the parliament in November. On January 15.28 / kWh €ct 45. Greece passed an amendment to the tariff. 2009 . In addition. the government had set a target of 840MW of solar PV installations by 2020. with 640MW of these installations on the mainland and 200MW on the islands.. Figure 163:Greek Solar Incentives Mai nl and Feed in Tari ff Tax Credits Beneficial Credit Terms Investment Grant < 100 kWp > 100 kWp €ct 45.000. The government introduced a RES (Renewable Energy Sources) law in June 2006 which offered a special tariff for PV energy and set the basic permitting procedures.28 / kWh Income t ax reduction by 20% of the installation costs. Other Informati on Source: EPIA. durat ion unt il end of 2008 20-40% of syst em cos ts depending on region and type of company FIT payment duration fix for 10 years. max €700. 28 /kWh I slands €ct 50. Under the current feed-in tariff program. small enterprises are eligible for a subsidy that covers four units of the interest contracted to finance PV installations. PV systems for commercial applications are eligible for a state grant. Under the new feed-in tariff law.on-grid as well as off -grid systems Interest rate support of 4% for credits of €10. accounting for 20% to 40% of installed cost depending on the size and region of the investing company.9% in 2005 to 18% in 2020. new tariffs are adjusted annually based on retail price increases and inflation. Lastly. The European Union wants Greece to increase its share of renewables in energy from 6. Small domestic applications receive a 20% tax deduction capped at EUR700 per system in addition to the feed-in tariff.Solar Energy Handbook Greece Natural conditions make Greece an ideal market but the government must take measures to aid solar installations. fores ees new Feed-in Tariff which will be guaranteed f or 20 years and the degress ion rat e will be f ixed and known for 5 years. There is currently no cap associated with the feed in tariff. Barclays Capital Research 142 May 01. 000 – 350. 28 /kWh €ct 40. ext ension of furt her 10 years possible inst allations of max. eliminating the 840MW cap that was originally included in the law.

Barclays Capital estimates Source: EIA. wind.0% 1 .0% % Ho us eho ld Pen etr at ion 3 .5% 2 .5% 0 . Barclays Capital estimates Figure 166: Elec tricity Market Breakup Solar.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 164: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW) Figure 165: Solar Electricity per Capita 80 18 . 2009 143 .0 % 12 .0 % 40 8. 0% 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 200 7 200 8 2 009 E 2 010 E 20 11 E 20 12 E 10 0 Source: Solarbuzz.0 % 50 500 70 375 250 125 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E 60 10 . 0% 30 6.0% 0 .5% 1 .0 % So lar Elec tr icity Pe r Ca pit a (W/ pe rso n) So lar as % of Re ne wab les 16 . 0% 2. Barclays Capital estimates Source: EIA. 0% 20 4. Barclays Capital estimates May 01. etc 8% Figure 167: Solar Penetration 4 . 0% 0.0 % 14 .0% Thermal 92% 200 2 20 03 20 04 2 00 5 20 06 2 00 7 2 008 2 009 E 20 10 E 201 1E 20 12 E Source: Eurostat.0% 2 .5% Sola r as % o f O v ral l Elec tr icit y e 3 .

1% Solar as % of R enewables 0. The Jiangsu province for instance has announced additional incentives for solar projects with a cap of 240MW. 2009 .3 0. The law guarantees connection to the grid and purchase of all output at a preapproved price. China wants to increase its installed capacity of renewable energies to 60GW by 2010.4 0. The share of non-hydro renewables is planned at 1% of total power generation by 2010 and 3% by 2020. 0% 0. renewable power generation projects are required to obtain administrative permits to proceed and are required to follow an open tendering process for this permit should there be more than one applicant.1 0. 0% 0. The Chinese government recently introduced 25RMB/W incentive for BIPV roof-top projects in China. 1% 200 100 0. China passed the Renewable Energy Law in January 2006. Barclays Capital estimates Source: Solarbuzz.8GW cumulative installed capacity of solar by 2020. Several provincial governments have also expressed interest in promoting solar. 1% 0. Although there is no formal cap.8GW by 2020. 1% 0. we expect the government to allocate small budget to test the PV market development and follow-up with additional incentives from 2010. The Chinese government plans to increase the development of renewable energy to curb its reliance on oil and gas.5 0.2 0. Grid operators pass on the additional cost of using renewables to the end users. This would include 450MW of solar energy generating capacity. Barclays Capital estimates 144 May 01. which made State Councils responsible for the development of the renewables industry. with a target of 150 million square miles by 2010 and 300 million square miles by 2020.Solar Energy Handbook China China plans to install 450MW of solar capacity by 2010 and 1.0 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E Source: EIA. The government has set a target of 1.6 Solar E lect ric it y Per Capit a (W/ person) 0. Figure 168: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW) Figure 169: Solar Electricity per Capita 0. 0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E 0. Under the law. China has also set national goals for solar hot water.

Barclays Capital estimates May 01.0 % Thermal. 17% Solar. 2009 145 . 81% 0.0 % Solar as % of Overall Elec tricit y 0.0 % Nuclear.0 % 0. 2% Hydro.0 % 2002 200 3 2004 2005 20 06 2007 2008 2009 E 2010E 2 011E 201 2E Source: EIA.0 % 0. wind. 0% % Hous ehold Pe netr ation 0.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 170: Elec tricity Market Breakup Figure 171: Solar Penetration 0. etc .0 % 0. Barclays Capital estimates Source: EIA.

which could apply for aid under the initiative during the five years to 2012. The state of Punjab plans to offer 100MW of solar PV power projects.7 million) in solar plants. The Indian government plans to subsidize the running of solar power plants to develop a renewable energy infrastructure. 1 0.0% Source: Solarbuzz. Barclays Capital estimates Source: EIA.25)/kWh for solar thermal power fed to the electricity grid. The government will allow a maximum capacity of 10MW in each of the country’s states and a maximum of 5MW per developer under this initiative.0% 0.30)/kWh for solar PV and Rs10 (US$0. 50MW of this is expected to be generated from solar power. 2 1 . 4 0. 3 0. 5 0.5% Sola r Ele ctric ity Pe r Ca pita (W/ pers on) 2 . 8 2 .0% 0 . 7 0. The state of West Bengal has set a target to generate 500MW from renewable sources by 2015 for commercial purposes.5% 0. Figure 172: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW) Figure 173: Solar Electricity per Capita 0. 6 Sola r a s % o f Rene wables 400 300 200 100 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E 0. 2009 . The government seeks to increase its renewable capacity to 35GW in 2012 from 11GW currently. Barclays Capital estimates 146 May 01. The Indian government estimates that the private sector will invest about Rs10 billion (US$253. The main incentive announced in January 2008 is to provide financial assistance amounting to Rs12 (US$0.Solar Energy Handbook India Steps taken by the central and state governments in 2008 should provide a tailwind to the Indian solar industry.5% 1 . 0 20 02 20 03 200 4 200 5 200 6 200 7 2008 2009 E 2 010 E 2 011E 20 12E 0 .

6% % Hous eho ld Pe net rat ion 0 . wind.3% 0 . 15% 0 .Solar Energy Handbook Figure 174: Elec tricity Market Breakup Solar.2% 0 . 82% Source: EIA.1% 0 . Barclays Capital estimates May 01. Barclays Capital Source: EIA. etc.0% 2 002 20 03 20 04 200 5 200 6 200 7 20 08 200 9E 2 010 E 2 011 E 20 12E Thermal. 1% Figure 175: Solar Penetration 0 .4% 0 . 2% Hydro. 2009 147 .5% So lar as % of Overa ll Elec tric ity Nuclear.

The rebate for solar panels is A$8 per watt.05 0 kW with gross fe ed-in-tariff $ 4. up to a maximum of A$8. Currently. The Australian government created a Photovoltaic Rebate Program (PVRP) in 2000 through which cash rebates were provided for the installation of grid-connected or standalone PV systems.000 households. 2009 .800 $ 1.95% $33. Figure 176: Australia Capital Territory Estimated Financial Return (AUD) Sy stem Size Estim ated pu rchase price aft er rebate a nd RECs Annual inco me from electricity generated Approximate return on investment (ROI) annually Total net return in today's do llars af ter p ay off on initial investmen t Source: Energymatters.000 $777 19.980 kW wi th gross feed-in-tariff $12.810 1. The government has decided to test the rebate and limit it only to households earning less than A$100.00 0 $1. the different states have their own renewable energy targets. The program was extended by five years in May 2007.410 1.000.42 0 Figure 177: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW) Figure 178: Renewable Electricity Market Breakdown Other 15% Biomass 1% 100 80 60 40 20 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E Solar 21% Landfill G as 8% W ind 25% Hydro 30% Source: Solarbuzz. almost completely through hydropower. Barclays Capital research 148 May 01.Solar Energy Handbook Australia Australia currently generates about 8% of its electricity from renewable sources.3 6% $2 4. It has also decided to put a cap on the rebate payout to 6.com.227 11. The new government has currently set a goal for renewable sources to generate 20% of the country’s energy needs by 2020. As part of its climate change strategy introduced in 2004. with an allocation of A$150 million.62 0 kW with gross feed-in tariff $1 0.000. Australia set up a Solar Cities Program. State governments have also taken steps to promote solar through feedin tariffs.554 12.au 1.4 3% $1 7. Barclays Capital estimates Source: Australian Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator.

The new feed-in tariffs became effective on October 1. 2006. Barclays Capital research May 01. is allocated to solar PV. with hydropower having the largest share (57.47 and EUR0.60/kWh over a guaranteed 13 years.36 million.Solar Energy Handbook Austria Renewable energy sources produced 64. Figure 179: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW) Figure 180: Elec tricity Market Breakdown 50 40 30 20 10 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E Solar. Eight percent of this funding. on top of the amended Eco-electricity Law. both applicable to systems of up to 5 kW. while the share for PV is to be increased to 12%.000 roofs program that became effective in April 2008.7/W or EUR2. PV tariffs between EUR0. excluding large hydropower. 2009 149 . the PV Austria organization and the Ministry for Environment have created an additional 10.8/W are available for rooftop installations and EUR3. Subsidies to private investors of EUR2. The original PV capacity cap of 15MW was also eliminated. wind. 33% Source: Solarbuzz. Together. The new Austrian government plans to increase the share of renewables in electricity production to 80% in 2010 and to 85% by 2020.9% of Austria’s electricity consumption in 2006.4% of the total). or EUR1. Barclays Capital estimates Source: Eurostat. To achieve this goal. Funding volume for renewable energy systems is to be increased to EUR21 million annually. to 15% by 2015.5/W is available for façade installations. The amendment set a target of 10% electricity generation from “new renewables” by 2010 and an annual budget of EUR17 million. with 75% paid in the eleventh year— further reduced by 50% in the twelfth year. and there are plans to expand the overall budget share for ecoelectricity. The PV segment is funded through a surcharge on each kWh for electricity dealers and end-customers (flat rate for each metering point) and a share of 50% by the states.46/kWh are to be paid over 10 years.30 and EUR0. 67% Thermal. it has amended the country’s 2003 Eco-electricity Law. which provided feed-in tariffs between EUR0. etc.

but there is a 10MW cap on an individual project size.802/kWh. 59% Nuclear. The program extended the retail sales tax rebate on solar equipment to January 1.3 Source: PowerAuthority. Solar and other renewable sources such as wind. 2% Thermal.539/kWh for rooftop systems greater than 500KW. and landfill gas.2 10kW . biomass. The feed in tariff for ground mounted installations less than 10MW is CAD 0. The incentives decrease as the installation size increases. In March. Barclays Capital research 150 May 01.9 <10MW Ground Mounted 44. Ontario proposed a Feed-in-Tariff for Various forms of renewable energy production. etc. solar. The state has also set a target of installing 100. The application process and the following procedures are said to be overly complex.3 100kW. maxing out at CAD 0.000 solar roofs through the “Go Solar” program.on.500kW Rooftop 63. including onshore and offshore wind.100kW Rooftop 71. and hydro are eligible under the program. 2009 . The SOC program has mostly generated demand for large projects. while there have only been a small amount of residential and small commercial installations.5 >500kW Rooftop 53. ca Figure 182: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW) Figure 183: Elec tricity Market Breakdown 400 300 200 100 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E Hydro.Solar Energy Handbook Canada The Canadian market was mainly driven by off-grid customers until 2006. wind. The PV industry underwent a significant change after the state of Ottawa launched a “Standard Offer Program” in 2006. system owners will receive CAD 0. 15% Solar. For rooftop solar installations less than 10KW. biomass.443/kWh. hydroelectric. 2010. biogas. 24% Source: Solarbuzz. Figure 181: Ontario Proposed Feed-in-Tariff Inst allation Type Feed in Tarif f <10kW Rooftop 80. Barclays Capital estimates Source: EIA. The program has no overall cap.

6 agorot ($0. is put in place for the program. whichever comes first.242)/kWh was paid for installations between 100kW and 20MW and a tariff of 70. Figure 184: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW) 40 30 20 10 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E Figure 185: Elec tricity Market Breakdown Hy dro. The tariffs were established for two sizes. w ind. a 4% reduction in tariffs would occur every year. agriculture. 2009 151 . 100% Source: Solarbuzz.7MW of PV capacity with only 60kW connected to the grid.04 ILS ($0. Barclays Capital estimates Source: EIA.200kWh. Producers are allowed to sell electricity directly to a private customer or to the Israel Electricity Corporation.5%/kWh on electricity bills.25 agorot ($0. In August 2006. A cap of 50MW or seven years. which is relatively cheap and dependable.564)/kWh for installations up to 15kW for residential installers and up to 50kW for commercial installers. This structure is expected to be funded by a surcharge of about 0. etc . and these tariffs will be provided for 20 years. ranging from 1.700kWh to 2. These tariffs are paid for 20 years and are updated annually. Israel was estimated to have only 1. a tariff of 87. Israel initiated a feed-in tariff for solar technologies. At the end of 2007. As the country has almost universal access to grid-electricity. and the cost analysis of solar thermal plants was the basis for the tariffs. Barclays Capital research May 01. and exterior lighting.194)/kWh was paid for installations of more than 20MW. little grid-connected PV was reported before 2006. 0% Thermal. The Public Utilities Association introduced a tariff structure of 2. From 2010. PV installations in Israel are dominated by remote homes. 0% Solar.Solar Energy Handbook Israel Israel has one of the highest solar insolations worldwide.

Solar Energy Handbook

Portugal Among the EU countries, Portugal has historically had one of the highest dependencies on oil-generated electricity. Hydropower contributes 15%–30% of total electricity generation. A National Energy Strategy for renewable energy was initiated in 2006, introducing plans for resources such as biomass and solar hot water. The country now plans to expand its share of electricity generated from renewables to 39% by 2010. Wind power, as the main focus, is projected to reach installed capacity of 3,750MW by that time. Portugal has had a feed-in tariff system in place since 2005, with varying incentives for the different clean technology forms. There is a 150MW cap for solar PV capacity by 2010, and two ways for system operators to access funding. The first option is to become an Independent Power Producer in a licensing process administered by the DGGE. IPPs receive EUR0.445/kWh for systems below 5kW and EUR0.315/kWh for systems above 5kW. They are either subsidized for 15 years or for total production of 21GWh/MW (for larger systems). The second option consumers have is to sell half of the electricity they generate to the utilities, which are required to buy 50% at slightly below 100% of the feedin tariff for 10 years. This latter option is usually not as financially attractive as the IPP option, and thus far has not been widely used. In general, constrained DGGE licensing and prevailing bureaucracy has kept the process long and difficult to navigate. As a result, Portugal’s renewables market has not seen highly substantial growth, even with the attractive tariffs. An amendment to the law was set in late 2007. The government will provide a feed-in tariff of EUR0.65/kWh for systems of up to 3.68kW for a maximum of five years. An annual installation volume cap of 10MW exists; after it is reached, the tariff will be reduced by 5%. The approval procedure is expected to be simplified as well. Figure 186: Portuguese Solar Incentives
Law: DL 363/2007 Feed in Tariff Cap <= 3.68 kWp 12MW After this period, for more 10 complete years, the tariff will be reduced by 5% for each 10MW connected until that date. 0.65 €/kWh

Payment Fix

Valid for the year of c onnection + 5 complete years

All the installations must have, at least, 2m² of solar thermal installed to get the FIT. The law 312/2001 that es tablished the previous FIT was s uspended in January 2005. Law Other Information 363/2007 only allow to get licenses for systems up to 5,75KW. By the way s ys tems with power higher than 3,68 kWp and up to 5,75kWp will be paid with the tariff equal to the domestic house owner's buying price (0,11 kWh) and won’t benefit from the FIT. VAT Reduction Beneficial Credit Terms Reduction of VAT from 21% to 12% 100% reduction on interest rates. Started on 2007 and ends on 2013. Applicable only to SMEs to a maximum of 75 000€ per project loan for 5 years and 2 years for c apital " carência". Support level equals to 35% of the total investment. Start year 2007End year 2013 Applicable only to SMEs to a maximum of 250 000€ per project. (Portaria 1463/2007)

Investm ent Subsidy

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

152

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 187: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW)
60

Figure 188: Elec tricity Market Breakdown

40

Solar, wind, etc, 32%

20

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E
Conventional Thermal, 68%

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: Eurostat, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

153

Solar Energy Handbook

Switzerland In 2005, 57% of Switzerland’s electricity was generated by hydropower and 38% by nuclear power. Renewable energy sources were not sufficiently funded until parliament amended the country’s Energy Law the following year. PV-specific programs had been funded largely by many of the cantons and local communities. Beginning in 2006, the Swiss Federal Council opened discussion on the amendment regarding feed-in tariffs for renewable technologies. The new law came into effect on January 1, 2009. The incentive structure for PV installations is shown below. The feed-in tariff is expected to last for 25 years from the time system operation begins, and then decline by 8% annually —applicable to all new insta lla tions in the respective year. The aforementioned cap is dependent on the electricity surcharge billed to end-customers. Figure 189: Switzerland Solar Incentives
Power <10 Ground Based < 30 < 100 > 100 <10 Rooftop < 30 < 100 > 100 Feed In Ta riff Integrated (BIPV) <10 < 30 < 100 > 100 16 Mio CHF Cap This cap will be raised to 32 Mio, as soon as the average price of fe d-in solar electricity of new installations will be lower than abo ut 0.62 CHF Tariff for 25 years. Other Information Tariff Digression rate for new plants of 8% from 2010. Swiss Franc (01/09/2008): 1franc= 0.62 €
Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

Tari ff Swiss Franc (€ct/kWh) 2008 0.65 (40.2) 0.54 (33.4) 0.51 (31.6) 0.49 (30.3) 0.75 (46.4) 0.65 (40.2) 0.62 (38.4) 0.60 (37.1) 0.90 (55.7) 0.75 (46.4) 0.67 (41.2) 0.62 (38.4)

154

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 190: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW)

Figure 191: Elec tricity Market Breakdown
Solar, wind, etc, 8%

Conventional Thermal, 4%

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Nuclear, 88%
Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital estimates Source: Eurostat, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

155

Solar Energy Handbook

The Netherlands Electricity in the Netherlands is generated mainly from gas and coal. The government has announced plans to invest EUR800 million in the coming years on renewable energy and energy efficiency. The Dutch solar PV industry has been declining ever since its highest point of 20MW in 2003. At the time, there was extremely favorable support under subsidy schemes such as the Energy Premium Incentive. The simultaneous ending of the EPR and the utility subsidies framework resulted in a dramatic drop in PV investments. The introduction of a EUR0.33/kWh solar PV feed-in tariff came on January 30, 2008, and became effective in April. It will be paid over 15 years for solar electric systems between 0.6 and 3kW. A EUR0.234/kWh, tariff for net-metering will be accompanying it. Figure 192: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW) Figure 193: Elec tricity Market Breakdown
Nuclear, 4% Solar, wind, etc, 4%

15

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Conventional Thermal, 92%
Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital estimates Source: Eurostat, Barclays Capital research

156

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

United Kingdom Seventy-six percent of electricity in the United Kingdom is generated from conventional sources and 16% is generated from nuclear. Renewable energy comprises 4% of total generation, with hydropower having a 1.2% share. With low incentives, the United Kingdom’s PV market has had only modest activity. The government, however, has set a target of 10% electricity from renewable sources by 2010 and an ambitious 20% by 2020. Although the focus is largely on new nuclear capacity, we believe there will be a more consistent commitment to focus on other clean technologies. To achieve these goals, the government plans to reform the Renewables Obligation and reduce grid-access barriers. Figure 194: UK Solar Incentive Program
1 ROC is delivered for each MWh of green (e.g. PV) electricity produced. The generated electricity can be self-consumed or fed into the grid. The R OC’s can be sold to energy suppliers according the quota obligation(increasing each year) they need to fulfill. Average price of ROC is between 35 £ and 50 £. Reduced VAT: 5%

Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROC's)

Tax Credits

Investment Grants

Low Carbon Buildings Programme (Phase I and II) Residential: £2,000/kW; £2,500 max. or 50% of project cost, whichever is lower. Public sector buildings and non-profits: 50% of total project cost s; £1.0 million max, 0,5-50 kWp

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

157

Solar Energy Handbook

Other European Regions Belgium On the national level in Belgium, solar electricity producers that are taxpayers are refunded 50% of investment costs of up to EUR3 per watt. Net-metering reduces electricity bills by the amount of produced PV electricity at the normal retail price of EUR0.15/kWh. On the regional level, Flanders’ green certificates place a EUR0.45/kWh value on solar electricity for 20 years from the date of installation. Net-metering compensation is available as well. The “Ecology Premium” program still exists to provide commercial PV investors grants that recover a portion of costs. Subsidies are also offered by some municipalities. Figure 195:Belgium Solar Incentives
Brussels Duration Up to 20 m2 (B) Up to 5 kWp (W) No Si ze Limitation (F) Green Certificates Next 40m2 (B) Next 5 kWp (W) No Si ze Limitation All further m2 (B) 10-250 kWp(W) No Si ze Limitation All Further kWp (W) Pri vate Households 50% of investment (max 3€/Wp) 0.15 €/kWh 20% of investment (max 3500€) 20%/10% of additional costs f or SME/ larger companies, max € 1.5 Mio until resources are used up, currently 25 Mio. €) 0. 15 - 0.32 €/kWh 0.15 - 0.36 €/kWh 0. 15 - 0.50 €/kWh 0.32 - 0.45 €/kWh 0.45 €/ kWh 0. 15 - 0.65 €/kWh 0.45 - 0.63 €/kWh 10 Years Wallonia 15 Years Flanders 20 Years

Investment Grants

Companies

Max 50% or 200,000€

Max 50% of invest ment f or SMEs, 20% for larger companies

Public bui ldings and non commercial entities Tax Credi ts Net Metering
Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

30% of invest ment for public and non commercial entities Privat e: Tax Reduction of 40% of Invest ment, max 3440€ / residence (2008) Companies: 13.5% of inst allation cost deductible from profit t ax Possible for Installations <= 10kW

158

May 01, 2009

This number falls to EUR0. The incentive structure in Cyprus distinguishes between on-grid systems for homes and enterprises not engaged in economic activities. For systems less than 5kWp.37/kWh for systems greater than 5kWp. In 2007. with the option to May 01. wind.927.40/kWh. the government will pay approximately EUR0. Barclays Capital research Bulgaria Bulgaria has a 25-year feed-in tariff for solar installations. etc. A variable sur charge is added that cannot be les s than 95% of the previous year’s level. 2009 159 . the grid-linked market reached 1MW. That means the PV FIT c ould also inc reas e as electricity prices have ris en s harply in Bulgaria in the past years. Ninety percent of private households already have solar hot water systems.40 €/kWh) Duration > 5 KwP 0. For systems installed before this date there is no limit on system size.37 €/kW h) 25 Years Other Information Tariff Annual Review S ystem Limit Cap The tariff is regulate every y ear (by 31st M arch) based on the following: The FIT rate is derived from a portion of 80% of the average elec tricity price in the previous year.718 BGN/kWh (~0. Barclays Capital estimates Source: Eurostat. but the maximum system size is 10MW for all systems installed after March 31. Households can either receive a grant of 55% of total system cost up to EUR64. 2009. Figure 198: Bulgaria Feed in Tariff <= 5 kWp Feed in Tariff 0. There is no cap on installations.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 196: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW) Figure 197: Elec tricity Market Breakdown Solar. 3% 25 Conventional Thermal.782 BGN/kW h (~ 0. 10 MW Plant (Any Size for plants installed before March 31st. 54% 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E Source: Solarbuzz. and off-grid systems. 43% Nuc lear. systems for companies. 2009) None FIT Legal duration until end of 2010 Beneficial Credit Terms Up to 20% of the project inves tm ent from the Bulgarian E ner gy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Credit Line (B EERECL) Source: EPIA. Barclays Capital Research Cyprus The PV market is still very young in Cyprus. but the country’s strong radiation profile provides solid conditions for solar.

The national programm e con sists of several su b-programm es.2 620 CZK Source: EPIA. Operational Programme Environm ent. The remuneration lasts 20 years and is adjusted to electricity prices annually. Barclays Capital estimates Source: EIA. Stand-alone systems receive a grant of 55% of costs. It allocates investment grants from the Cohesion Fund t o projects in t he field o f renewa ble en ergy. but can sell generated electricity at EUR0.481 €/ kW h (12.205/kWh in tariffs. im plem ented by the Ministry of Environm ent which allows fo r the p romotion of all technologies use d in t he generation of rene wable ele ctricity.333/kWh in tariffs. 5 86/1992.383/kWh. o nly PV systems whose capacity d id not exceed 5 kW p were promot ed. Other Information The FIT is granted for 20 years. A green bonus system is also available. I nvestment Subs idy ECO-ENERGY program me of th e Op erational Programme Enterprise and Innovation s. Barclays Capital research Czech Republic There are two incentive options for system operators. Figure 201: Czech Republic Solar Incentives Fixed FIT Fe ed in Tariff and/ or Green Premium Tax Credi ts 0.Solar Energy Handbook sell generated electricity to the Electricity Authority of Cyprus (EAC) at EUR0. Companies are not eligible for PV grants. or else receive remuneration at an increased tariff of EUR0. the first being a 20 year feed-in of EUR0.00 CZK=0 .52/kWh. The purchase prices are adjuste d related to inflation. The am ount of prices for elect ricity from renewable sources and gree n bonuses are yearly determined by the Energy Regulatory office.460 CZK/MW h) Green Bonus 0. Values at December 16: 1.00 EUR=26.48/kWh. 100% Figure 200: Elec tricity Market Breakdown Source: Solarbuzz. In 2007. I t gives entreprene urs the oppo rtunity to apply for investme nt grant s or low-interest loan s fo r projects in the field of renewable energy within. Figure 199: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW) 50 40 30 20 10 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E Thermal. 2009 . The bonus system provides incentives of EUR0. 650 CZK/MWh) Income is exem pt from taxes (Act No. This program me is funded by th e ERDF (European Regiona l Developme nt Fund ). where electricity is sold directly to customers or dealers and the grid operator adds a green bonus.512€/kWh (13. State Environmental Fund. Barclays Capital Research 160 May 01. on I ncom e Ta x) Operators m ay receive subsidies unde r the European Structural Funds or the natio nal progra mme.0380595 EUR 1.

3% 50 Nuclear. 67% Source: Solarbuzz. wind. Barclays Capital estimates Source: Eurostat. Barclays Capital research May 01. 30% 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E Conventional Thermal. etc. 2009 161 .Solar Energy Handbook Figure 202: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW) 100 Figure 203: Elec tricity Market Breakdown Solar.

109 48% 449% 14. B arc lay s Capital Es tim ates -3% 1.837 54% 534% 10.080 20% 2.277 20% 816 737 30% 2.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 204: Solar Demand Scenario (2005–12E) MW 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E Japan y/y (%) Germany y/y (%) Italy y/y (%) Spai n 292 14% 837 53% 6 292 0% 960 15% 60 230 -21% 1.808 24% 54% 2.454 -25% 550% 6.088 40% 1.488 y/y (%) Canada 25% 3 33% 4 57% 4 64% 9 0% 53 200% 158 90% 238 70% 356 y/y (%) China 33% 15 36% 20 16% 24 100% 29 500% 58 200% 104 50% 166 50% 232 y/y (%) South K or ea 200% 5 33% 21 20% 42 20% 280 100% 392 80% 588 60% 1.677 48% -9% 5.224 848 15% 3. 2009 .591 NM 35 900% 110 45% 428 45% 2.860 40% 240 334 45% 1.151 40% 162 May 01.328 38% 87 230 0% 1.278 20% 1.460 100% 300 70% 360 50% 432 30% 518 y/y (%) Franc e 40% 7 214% 11 289% 16 475% 33 -88% 98 20% 196 20% 392 20% 785 y/y (%) Greec e 43% 1 56% 1 50% 12 100% 30 200% 44 100% 87 100% 200 100% 460 y/y (%) Czec h Republi c -3% 0 20% 0 900% 4 150% 7 45% 42 100% 55 130% 71 130% 92 y/y (%) Aus tri a NM 3 NM 2 NM 3 100% 6 500% 19 30% 24 30% 32 30% 41 y/y (%) Por tugal -29% 0 -47% 0 56% 12 150% 18 200% 27 30% 35 30% 46 30% 59 y/y (%) Swi tzerl and -20% 4 -100% 3 NM 3 50% 6 50% 7 30% 9 30% 12 30% 15 y/y (%) The Nether lands 90% 2 -35% 2 15% 1 100% 2 15% 10 30% 13 30% 17 30% 22 y/y (%) Bel gium -53% 0 -12% 0 -33% 2 100% 4 400% 12 30% 16 30% 20 30% 26 y/y (%) Cyprus NM 0 NM 0 NM 1 100% 2 200% 12 30% 18 30% 27 30% 41 y/y (%) Rest of Eur ope NM 40 NM 74 NM 107 100% 202 500% 124 50% 148 50% 178 50% 213 y/y (%) US -9% 105 85% 140 45% 220 131% 360 -50% 360 20% 1.950 122% -38% 4.414 y/y (%) Indi a 100% 16 324% 12 100% 17 560% 31 40% 63 50% 119 85% 226 30% 384 y/y (%) Aus trali a 23% 8 -25% 10 45% 16 80% 20 100% 40 90% 56 90% 72 70% 88 y/y (%) Isr ael 24% 0 17% 0 65% 0 25% 0 100% 9 40% 14 29% 21 22% 32 y/y (%) Others -75% 101 200% 107 0% 164 50% 121 2000% 75 50% 98 50% 127 50% 165 y/y (%) Total y/y (%) Sourc e: Sol arbuzz .732 20% 1.052 20% 3.897 2% 480 567 70% 2.460 34% 6% 1.

Solar Energy Handbook Figure 205: New PV Installations Breakdown 16.000 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 6.000 10.000 2.000 4. Solarbuzz May 01. 2009 163 .000 8.000 14.000 12.000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E y/y (%) 2012E 20% 0% -20% -40% NEW PV INSTALLATIONS BREAKDOWN (MW) Source: Barclays Capital estimates.

016% 70.153 20% 12. 0 -8% $0.20 13% ($0. 50 $0.001% 7. 9 0. 4 0.49% 2% 0. 24 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% $44. 09% 255 3.8% 128 10% 6.08% 22.08% 3. 010% 43.6% 9 11.250 16% 6.06) $0.0 0.868 357. 6 82.Su bsidi zed Retail Electricity Price ($/ kWh) y/y (%) I NVESTM ENT RETURN PARAM ETERS T otal I nvestment I RR (%) Payb ack Peri od (Years) L AND AREA PARAMETERS Solar El ectri city Land Availab le (sq.250 16% 10. 50 $0. 2 0. 9% 130 10% 8.0 0.08% 195. 007% 34.24 -7% ($0. 868 357. 7 82.84% 14. 8 82. 47 0% $0.831 15% 2. 9 4. 868 1. 1 0. 14 $0. 002% 12. 9 0. 23 -7% ($0.012% 55. 119 40% 5.01) $0.3% 123 10% 4.868 357.003% 17. 229 820 683 1.000 $26.0 1.4% 125 10% 5. 71% 18.14% 21 0.732 2012E 3.54 -16% $0.868 357. 868 357.30 $0.41% 5% 0. 1 4. 0 0.897 2010E 2.49 4% ($0.250 16% 11. 50 $0.0 0.000 $23. 868 357.09% 0.57 17% ($0.26) $0.0 1. 99 43% 50 61% 51 103% 61 79% 62 52% 74 48% 81 45% 89 32% 98 29% 108 27% 119 25% 131 14% 0.18 32% 6. 23 $0.005% 25.47 $0.43 122% 0.15 25% 13. 9% 10 10. 65% 1. 74% 2% 0. 3 0.1% NA 4.82 29% 8. 08% 49.9 0.163 43% 0.0 0.7% 138 2% 536 329 23 157 28 5% 563 355 19 157 32 -1% 577 357 21 159 40 0% 579 362 19 155 43 2% 592 359 21 159 53 2% 604 366 21 162 54 2% 616 374 22 165 55 2% 628 2% 641 2% 654 2% 667 -3% 0.09% 15.01 $0.475 984 820 82. 4 39.1 0.000 $40.250 16% 3. 250 16% 6.10% 19. 08% 35.79 27% 11. 9% 13 8. 40 -7% ($0.08% 97.22 -9% ($0.250 16% 10. 2 39. 020% 42 25 17 85 51 34 273 164 109 419 251 167 480 288 192 664 398 266 930 558 372 854 569 474 1.47% 2% 0.8 39.1% 133 10% 9.5 82. 89% 120 1. 41% 12.024 683 569 1.278 83 5% 278 105% 448 221% 994 53% 1. 868 357. 5 4. 9 0.22% 2% 2. Sol ar.08% 76.26) $0. 1 0.4 0.05% 9. 7 4. 08% 154. 37% 16.2 0.5 1.074 $14.3 82. EIA. 14 10% $0. 250 16% 4. 1 0.16 $0.22 $0.90% 232 2. 27) $0. Solarbuzz 164 May 01. 7% 13 7. 000 $44. 59% 13.979 2% 7.. 08% 155.250 16% 5.5% 12 9.08% 5. 08% 52.08% 12.9% NA 4.1 39. 277 2011E 2. 000 $42.58% 105 0. Wi nd and Waste Electric Power) y/y (%) Solar as % of Overal l El ectri city Renewabl es as % o f Overall El ectr icity ELECTRI CI TY PRI CE PARAMETERS Annu al I nsol ati on (kWh /sq.08% 95.08% 23.08% 9.8 82.43 $0. 49 -20% $0. 3 0.43 -15% $0.5 1. 21 7% $0. 2009 .0 1. 6 39.868 357.15% 10.56% 0% 0. 8% 122 19% 1.53% 2% 1.876 20% 10.11% 2% 0.145 $12.5 1.860 2009E 1. 0 1. 250 16% 9. 885 20% 16.28) $0.27% 10.27) $0.08% 192.0 0.08% 72.08% 5. 50 $0.8 0.32% 68 0.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 206: Germany Solar PV Demand Model Germany Annu al Sol ar In stal latio ns (MW) y/y (%) Cumul ati ve So lar Capaci ty (M W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Generated (Bil li on kWh) y/y (%) Renewabl e Electrici ty Gen erated (Bi ll ion kWh) y/y (%) Solar as % of Renewab les Overal l I nstall ed Capacity ('000 M W) y/y (%) Overal l Electrici ty Generated (Bill io n kWh) Convent ional Thermal Hydroelectric Power Nucl ear Power Ot her Renewables (Geo.5 1.4 0. 001% 4.46 -12% $0. 2 39.58 52% 2.4 82.6 4.8 4. 4 39. 46 $0.Unsubsi dized Subsi dies ($/ kWh) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) . 5% NA 7.7 4.868 357. 0 0.250 16% 3. 8 4.0 39.18 $0. 2 0.7 39. 00 $0. 88 84% 1.57 45% 5.42 48% 3.27 61% 0.0% NA 0. 791 38% 4. 8 0. 67% 2% 1.1 0.6 4. 08% 122.22 $0. 9 39.3 0. 18 29% $0. 093 $16. 000 $38. km)/kWh Requi red % Lan d Covered with Sol ar SOLAR INSTALLATIONS BREAKDOWN Resid enti al y/y (%) C&I Roofto p y/y (%) Util ity Scal e/Grou nd-Mou nted y/y (%) PER CAPI TA PARAMETERS Popul ation (mi ll ion ) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Per Capita (W/ person) # Ho usehol ds (mil lio n) y/y (%) Average Solar Capacity Per 1000 Househol ds (kW) Average Solar In stal lation Requi red Per Househol ds (kW) % Househo ld Penetration # Incremental Ho usehold s I nstal li ng Sol ar ('000) 2002 2003 170 2004 546 2005 837 2006 960 2007 1. 4 4.27 $0. 31% 166 1.08% 12.868 357.0% NA 3.45% 213 3.48 $0. 024 0. 00 $0. m) Con versi on Efficiency (%) Solar System Pri ces ($/W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) .26) $0. 328 2008 1. 6% 9 357. 5% 116 2% 0. 0 1. 4 82.0 0.0 0. 6 82.5% 121 2% 2. 87% 306 4. 2 0.0 1.2 4.23 -7% ($0.0 0.81% 368 Source: Barclays Capital estimates. 3 0.90% 2% 1. 08% 33.0 0. 000% 2. km) Area (sq.920 $20.4 39. 5% 120 19% 3.08% 3. 0 0. 2 82. 08% 123.4% 136 10% 10.250 16% 11.

Solar Energy Handbook Figure 207: Spain Solar PV Demand Model Spai n Ann ual So lar I nstall ation s (MW) y/ y (%) Cumul ative Sol ar Capaci ty (M W) y/ y (%) Sol ar Electrici ty Generated (Bil li on kWh) y/ y (%) Renew able El ectri city Gen erated (Bil lio n kWh ) y/ y (%) Sol ar as % o f Renewabl es Overal l Instal led Capacity ('000 MW) y/ y (%) Overal l El ectri city Gen erated (Bil li on kWh ) Convent ional Thermal Hydroelect ri c Power Nuclear Power Ot her Renewabl es (Geo. 18 $0. 1% 16 6. 12% 0.0% 51 62% 0.14 138% 0.11 5% $0. 3 0.15 $0. 63% 6% 0.12% 19. 0 15.1 14.0 1.005% 0 1 4 0 3 12 1 5 20 1 7 27 2 22 86 9 86 334 49 492 1.15 1% -5% $0. 0 4. 920 $20. 12% 14. 85% 38 Source: Barclays Capital estimates.40) $0.1 4.47 10% 6.62% 1. 2 40. 000 $42. 782 504.11% 4% 0. 12% 2.9 15.1 0.00% 0 0.7% 9 14. 7 1.6 42.000 $38. 10 398% 5. . 2 15.18 -10% ($0. 57 -16% $0.1 4.950 16% 6.12% 0.950 16% 11.0% NA 6. 00% 0 0. km)/ kWh Req uired % L and Co vered wi th Sol ar SOLAR I NSTALL ATI ONS BREAKDOWN Resi dential y/ y (%) C&I Rooftop y/ y (%) Util ity Scale/ Groun d-Moun ted y/ y (%) PER CAPITA PARAMET ERS Popu latio n (mil li on) y/ y (%) Sol ar Electrici ty Per Cap ita (W/ person) # Househol ds (mi ll ion ) y/ y (%) Average Sol ar Capaci ty Per 1000 Househ olds (kW) Average Sol ar I nstall ati on Requi red Per Hou sehol ds (kW) % Hou sehol d Penetrati on # In cr emental Househ old s In stal li ng So lar (' 000) 2002 5 2003 15 2004 25 2005 35 2006 110 2007 428 2008 2.378 20% 3. 0 15.00% 22. 782 504.2% 75 10% 7.31) $0.41 12% 8.43 -12% $0.3 4.73% 5% 0.94% 2% 1.5 43. 0% NA 0.3% 77 4% 229 135 23 60 12 15% 245 131 41 59 15 15% 260 150 31 60 18 1% 270 173 19 55 23 2% 283 171 25 57 30 2% 289 174 26 58 30 2% 295 178 26 59 31 2% 301 2% 307 2% 313 2% 319 3% 0.782 504. 12% 106. 0 1.078 -88% 3. Solarbuzz May 01.3% 67 30% 0. 12% 87. 12% 0. 00% 27.950 16% 11.0 1.074 $14.01% 1 0. 14 20% ($0.005% 26.6 15. Sol ar. 32 $0.12% 4.29 $0. 000 $26.39 -15% $0. 00 300% 0.47 -5% $0.16) $0.5 1.19 $0. 950 16% 3.00 125% 0.0% 7 15.18 -10% ($0. 1% 8 13. 0 0.001% 17. 38% 21.2% 66 -14% 0. 12% 34. 17 -25% ($0. 00% 0 0.782 504. 74% 2% 2. 3 1. 5 1.000 $40. 0 1. 2009 165 .6% 7 15.31 $0.8 4. 738 20% 4. 5 43.12% 73.2 1. 5 4.0 3. 0 1.2 0.0 1.7% 70 15% 7.0 1. 9 1. 7 0.782 504.0 1.5 0.782 504. 782 504.32 $0.19 $0.33 NM 34 NM 55 NM 50 78% 43 138% 55 225% 63 398% 73 10% 84 11% 94 12% 103 12% 114 -30% 0.024 0.15 11% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% $33. 5 0.8% 6 504. 61% 35. 03% 19. 12% 0.004% 23. 41% 27 0.63% 2% 2. 37% 33.0 0.093 $16.10 $0. 28 $0. 5 14.99% 7% 0.47 0% ($0. 0 4.03% 2% 2.12% 4.004% 21. 0 1. 12% 79.57 17% ($0.0 14. 4% 16 7. 28) $0. 8 0.950 16% 5. km) Area (sq. 02% 2 0.43 -20% $0. 003% 19.34 225% 1. 00% 0.5 1. 8 1.12% 0.0 1. 12% 96. 7 1. 46% 2% 0.0 1. 05% 15. 1 41.0 1.5 1.21) $0. 01 11% 6.0 1.0 1. m) Con ver si on Effici ency (%) Sol ar System Prices ($/ W) y/ y (%) Sol ar Electrici ty Pri ce ($/kWh ) . 61% 32 0.000 $44.0 0.2% 72 12% 7. 5 0. 0 42. 32 $0. 6 41.0 1.5 1. 12% 16. 0% 58 -10% 0.89% 2% 2.145 $12.782 504.0 1.3 39.1% 74 10% 7. 0 1.09 $0.12% 0.7 16.26) $0. 12% 1.17 -8% $0.5 1.65 12% 7.08 78% 0. 6% 68 15% 1. 12% 9. 00 -5% $0. 0 43.950 16% 6. 00% 14. 12% 0. 950 16% 10. 000% 3. 0 4.86% 24.3 1. 950 16% 3. 12% 24. 5% 71 15% 7.18 0% ($0.0 0% $0. 49 4% ($0.460 2009E 300 2010E 360 2011E 432 2012E 518 NM 5 200% 20 67% 45 40% 80 214% 190 289% 618 475% 3. 6 4.5 15.000% 0.1% 8 11. 17% 30. 950 16% 4. 170 20% 4. 17 7% -32% $0. EIA.10% 12 0. 000% 0.000% 1.18) $0.1 14.782 0. 24% 22 0.28) $0. 1% 14 12.919 90 30 180 108 36 216 130 43 259 156 52 311 39.782 504. 12% 0. 950 16% 10.35 0% ($0.782 504.Subsid ized Retail Electri ci ty Pri ce ($/ kWh ) y/ y (%) I NVESTM ENT RET URN PARAM ETERS T otal Investment I RR (%) Payback Period (Years) L AND AREA PARAMET ERS Sol ar Electrici ty Land Avai lab le (sq. 38) $0. 9 1.000% 0.32 $0.3 0.00 0% $0. 688 NM 0. 0 1.Unsub si di zed Subsi di es ($/kWh) y/ y (%) Sol ar Electrici ty Pri ce ($/kWh ) .000 $23.12 $0.7 40.8 4. W ind and W ast e Electric Power) y/ y (%) Sol ar as % o f Overall Electri city Renew ables as % of Over al l El ectrici ty ELECT RI CIT Y PRICE PARAMETERS Ann ual Inso latio n (kWh/ sq.950 16% 9.

245 301.7 0.0 0. 38 $0. 2009 .8% 87 10% 6.000% 0. 64 -20% $0. 0 0.0 0. 000 $28. 13% 71. 2 3. 13% 29. 38 $0.0 0. 00 NM 0.14 $0.245 301.650 16% 11.0 0. 0% 70 16% 0.0 0.0 1.0 0. 21 -2% ($0. 0 0. 2 57. 0 0.65% 291 Source: Barclays Capital estimates. 0 0.9% 8 12.4% 80 10% 0.5 1. 16% 20 0.36 $0.65 -16% $0. 4 57. 0% NA 11.0 0. 7 3.00 NM 0.9% 82 10% 1.0 0.00 -32% $0.36 $0. 00 -5% $0.000% 0.13% 0.0 3.2% 79 10% 0.00% 16. Sol ar.500 $30. 9 0.00% 0 0.1% 6 20.591 NM 0 NM 0 NM 0 NM 6 900% 66 45% 153 45% 393 100% 873 70% 1. 000 $31. 49) $0.0 0.245 301. 1 0.0% NA 0. EIA.3 57.2 57.31% 2% 0.13% 0.00% 17. m) Con versi on Efficiency (%) Solar System Pri ces ($/W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) .21 ($0.78% 88 1.5 1.13% 15.224 2012E 1. 1 0.9 0.54 122% 1.33 $0.1 0.87% 27.18% 20. 13% 42. 42% 149 2.5 0. 13% 2. 000% 0.650 16% 3. km) Area (sq.19 93% 2. 245 0. 19 19% $0.13% 0.13% 6.1 57. 39% 224 3.0 0.8 0.00 1000% 0. 2% 4 301.504 NM 0. 13% 50. 38 $0. 0 0.913 30% 4. 650 16% 9. 3 3.940 $15.21 -2% ($0. 245 301. 16 5% $0.8 23.650 16% 3.13% 0. 0 22.44) $0.3 0.21 157% 0. 07% 14 0.62% 2% 1. 13% 2.5 23.33 $0. 6 57.22 -2% ($0. 3 23. 8% 84 10% 3. 0 57.0 3. 008% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 42 9 9 61 13 13 168 36 36 264 72 144 449 122 245 673 184 367 875 239 477 57. 0 0.00% 0 0.Su bsidi zed Retail Electricity Price ($/ kWh) y/y (%) I NVESTM ENT RETURN PARAM ETERS T otal I nvestment I RR (%) Payb ack Peri od (Years) L AND AREA PARAMETERS Solar El ectri city Land Availab le (sq.245 301.650 16% 5.48% 2% 1.62 -15% $0. 000% 0. 0 1. 0 1. 35 $0. 73% 23.0 1.003% 15. 245 301. 17 $0.2 0.63 -12% $0.000% 2.49) $0.0 0. 13% 1.500 $19.12 $0. 2 23.00 NM 0.84% 2% 0.7 57. 0 0.6% 8 14.1% 5 23. 79% 3% 0.0 22.00% 18. 1 0.Unsubsi dized Subsi dies ($/ kWh) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) .0% NA 0.30 72% 3.9 0.13% 0.0 3.13% 0.0% NA 0.1% 85 10% 4. 000 $33. 62% 2% 0. 00 0% $0.22 -2% ($0. 689 50% 2.5 1.8 3.0 0. km)/kWh Requi red % Lan d Covered with Sol ar SOLAR INSTALLATIONS BREAKDOWN Resid enti al y/y (%) C&I Roofto p y/y (%) Util ity Scal e/Grou nd-Mou nted y/y (%) PER CAPI TA PARAMETERS Popul ation (mi ll ion ) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Per Capita (W/ person) # Ho usehol ds (mil lio n) y/y (%) Average Solar Capacity Per 1000 Househol ds (kW) Average Solar In stal lation Requi red Per Househol ds (kW) % Househo ld Penetration # Incremental Ho usehold s I nstal li ng Sol ar ('000) 2002 0 2003 0 2004 0 2005 6 2006 60 2007 87 2008 240 2009E 480 2010E 816 2011E 1.7% 7 18.01% 1 0.650 16% 10. 48% 1.00% 0.00% 18.609 $9.50) $0.650 16% 11.7 23.13% 78. 91% 2% 0.3 0. 23 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% $33. 0% 69 -8% 0.650 16% 10.5 1. 650 16% 4.018 0. 13% 4.00 -5% $0. 35 $0. 0 3. 5 57.0% 71 -9% 0. 245 301.245 301.500 $17.7 3.650 16% 6.13% 23. 0% 77 7% 0. 20 4% $0.14 NM 49 NM 45 NM 52 NM 47 NM 51 132% 56 157% 62 122% 68 93% 75 72% 82 55% 90 -11% 0. 650 16% 6. 23% 25.4 3. 38 $0.7 0.245 301.45) $0.21 $0. 001% 8. 05% 5% 0. 000% 0.23 $0.. 245 301.0% NA 0.67 -8% $0. 9 3.005% 23.88% 0% 0.13% 109. 07% 18.13% 11.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 208: Italy Solar PV Demand Model I tal y Annu al Sol ar In stal latio ns (MW) y/y (%) Cumul ati ve So lar Capaci ty (M W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Generated (Bil li on kWh) y/y (%) Renewabl e Electrici ty Gen erated (Bi ll ion kWh) y/y (%) Solar as % of Renewab les Overal l I nstall ed Capacity ('000 M W) y/y (%) Overal l Electrici ty Generated (Bill io n kWh) Convent ional Thermal Hydroelectric Power Nucl ear Power Ot her Renewables (Geo.0 1.09 132% 0.19 3% $0.056 $10. 00 -5% $0. Solarbuzz 166 May 01.40% 56 0. 070 $12.13% 0.38% 21.0 23. 8% 89 1% 263 214 39 0 10 1% 268 223 33 0 12 3% 278 225 39 0 13 8% 279 231 33 0 14 2% 292 241 36 0 15 2% 297 245 36 0 15 2% 303 250 37 0 16 2% 309 2% 316 2% 322 2% 328 2% 0.47) $0.2 23. 10 $0. Wi nd and Waste Electric Power) y/y (%) Solar as % of Overal l El ectri city Renewabl es as % o f Overall El ectr icity ELECTRI CI TY PRI CE PARAMETERS Annu al I nsol ati on (kWh /sq. 0 0% $0. 97 55% 6. 0 0.20 ($0.0 1.0 22. 03% 17. 4 57. 001% 4.47% 2% 0.13% 0. 60 -2% $0. 1 23.

7 59.3 3.000% 2. 02% 1 0.14 $0.41% 18.16 -2% ($0.4% 10 11.6 0.00% 12. 5 24.965 543. 50 $0. 13 $0. km) Area (sq. 0 0. 15% 20 0. 70 -2% ($0.000% 0.3 3. 000% 0. m) Con versi on Efficiency (%) Solar System Pri ces ($/W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) .00% 0% 0. 2009 167 .01% 0 0.2 0. 3% 5 543.250 16% 10.15 -2% ($0. 00 $0.6 3.22 101% 0. km)/kWh Requi red % Lan d Covered with Sol ar SOLAR INSTALLATIONS BREAKDOWN Resid enti al y/y (%) C&I Roofto p y/y (%) Util ity Scal e/Grou nd-Mou nted y/y (%) PER CAPI TA PARAMETERS Popul ation (mi ll ion ) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Per Capita (W/ person) # Ho usehol ds (mil lio n) y/y (%) Average Solar Capacity Per 1000 Househol ds (kW) Average Solar In stal lation Requi red Per Househol ds (kW) % Househo ld Penetration # Incremental Ho usehold s I nstal li ng Sol ar ('000) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% $33. 14 ($0. 965 543.0% NA 6. 8% 129 0% 528 48 60 415 5 0% 535 52 59 419 6 0% 542 51 59 426 6 1% 544 57 51 429 6 2% 542 52 55 428 7 2% 553 53 56 436 8 2% 564 54 57 445 8 2% 576 2% 587 2% 599 2% 611 1% 0.41% 0. EIA. 001% 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 2 4 3 3 6 5 5 9 10 10 18 29 31 54 59 62 108 118 124 216 235 247 432 59. 50 $0.9 60. 0 1.03 37% 0.03 54% 0.0 1. 000% 0.0% NA 0.00% 10.0 1.500 $17. 965 543.0 0.4 0.6 61.54% 2% 0.75 -16% $0.15% 18.056 $10. 250 16% 4.0% 112 -12% 0.48 $0.8% 6 17.250 16% 3.05 106% 0.43 $0. 070 $12.0 0. 2 0.609 $9. 000% 1. 965 0.7 0.23) $0.1 0.0 0.61% 2% 0.01% 0 0.3 25.71 -15% $0.41% 3.1 0. 4 24.6% 6 20. 01 27% 0. 41% 9. 16 $0. 34% 1% 0. 41% 0.01% 13.5 1.41% 2.2 3. 31% 39 0. 2 60.0 0.940 $15. 00 $0.1% 117 10% 0.500 $19.61% 78 Source: Barclays Capital estimates.1 3.41% 0. 07% 16. 46 $0. 965 543.48 $0. 5 0. 250 16% 9.04% 3 0.41% 0.01 23% 0.5 1.564 24% 0.41% 0.250 16% 11. 41% 0. 000 $33.5 0.77 17% ($0. 1 61. 250 16% 6. 00% 11. Sol ar. 0 0.72 -12% $0.965 543.2 3. 11 $0.0% 115 10% 0.250 16% 6. 3 0.41% 1.3 0.1% 120 10% 0.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 209: France Solar PV Demand Model F ran ce Annu al Sol ar In stal latio ns (MW) y/y (%) Cumul ati ve So lar Capaci ty (M W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Generated (Bil li on kWh) y/y (%) Renewabl e Electrici ty Gen erated (Bi ll ion kWh) y/y (%) Solar as % of Renewab les Overal l I nstall ed Capacity ('000 M W) y/y (%) Overal l Electrici ty Generated (Bill io n kWh) Convent ional Thermal Hydroelectric Power Nucl ear Power Ot her Renewables (Geo.02 33% 0.41% 1.45% 2% 0.16 $0.9% 8 15.250 16% 3. 0 1.250 16% 11.3 25. 1% 122 10% 0.01% 0.48) $0.965 543.27 $0. 46 $0. 57% 0% 0. 47% 2% 0. 50 $0.01 23% 0. 000 $28. 0 0. 00 $0. 1% 16 10.500 $30. 000% 0.9 0.15 $0.4 3.41% 0. 41% 1.66 $0. 1 0.41% 25.5 1.90 24% 65 23% 64 23% 65 27% 57 33% 63 37% 69 54% 76 106% 83 103% 92 101% 101 101% 111 -17% 0. 14 $0.0 0.0 1. Wi nd and Waste Electric Power) y/y (%) Solar as % of Overal l El ectri city Renewabl es as % o f Overall El ectr icity ELECTRI CI TY PRI CE PARAMETERS Annu al I nsol ati on (kWh /sq. 4 61. 02% 2 0.5 3.3 24.9 0. 1 0. 01% 12.000% 0.0 0. 0 -8% $0. 50 $0. 9 61. 74 -20% $0. 0 0.000% 4.01% 1 0.0 0. 000% 0.00 $0.965 543. 97% 1% 0. 6 60.14 2% I NVESTM ENT RETURN PARAM ETERS T otal I nvestment I RR (%) Payb ack Peri od (Years) L AND AREA PARAMETERS Solar El ectri city Land Availab le (sq. 45 101% 0. 41% 0.02% 14.0% NA 0.6 25.83% 2% 0.00% 11.965 543.965 543.00% 12.08% 10 0.000% 0.30 $0. 0% 112 -2% 0.7 3. 23 $0. 1 0. 0% 113 9% 0. 41% 12.0% NA 0. 15 -2% ($0.7 24.5 25.0 1. 5 0..51) $0.5 0. 1 0. 04% 15.2% 124 10% 0. Solarbuzz May 01.250 16% 10.11 103% 0. 4 3.5 1. 000 $31.56) $0. 4 59.250 16% 5.4% 127 10% 0.018 0.0% 9 12. 8 0.0 0. 15% 1.4 24. 41% 6.16 -2% ($0.41% 0.0 0.41% 0.Unsubsi dized Subsi dies ($/ kWh) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) . 41% 4.1 25.18 $0.54) $0.42% 2% 0.47) $0. 965 543.0 25. 55) $0. 3 3.4 60.Su bsidi zed Retail Electricity Price ($/ kWh) 2002 3 27% 17 2003 4 2004 5 2005 7 2006 11 2007 16 2008 33 2009E 98 2010E 196 2011E 392 2012E 785 18% 21 26% 26 43% 33 56% 44 50% 60 100% 93 200% 191 100% 387 100% 780 100% 1. 0% 112 2% 0.41% 0.2 0.

01% 0 0.1 0. 2 3.46) $0.0 0.0% NA 0.23 $0. 01% 0 0. 11 ($0. 26% 1.0 1. 0 0.01% 7. 000% 0. 0 11.1 3.0% NA 0. 38 $0.10% 8% 0.8 0.67 -12% $0.64 -16% $0. 37% -1% 0. 001% 1.3% 9 13.13 $0. 500 16% 6. 000 $31.003% 8.500 16% 11.940 $15.26% 0. 0% 17 10. Wi nd and Waste Electric Power) y/y (%) Solar as % of Overal l El ectri city Renewabl es as % o f Overall El ectr icity ELECTRI CI TY PRI CE PARAMETERS Annu al I nsol ati on (kWh /sq. 00 $0. 26% 16.0% NA 0.36 $0. 957 0.52) $0.1% 11 7% 0.68 -15% $0. 83% 2% 0.500 16% 6.9 0. 0 0.38) $0.26% 8. 42 $0.12 2% ($0.26% 0.056 $10. 957 131.5 1.0 0.0 0.957 131.00 $0.500 16% 10. 3% 13 10% 4.00 18% 0.0 11.500 16% 3.12 91% 0.11 $0.1 11.957 131.0 1.12 2% ($0. Solarbuzz 168 May 01.01% 10. m) Con versi on Efficiency (%) Solar System Pri ces ($/W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) .26% 3. Sol ar. 26% 33.5 0..8 0. km)/kWh Requi red % Lan d Covered with Sol ar SOLAR INSTALLATIONS BREAKDOWN Resid enti al y/y (%) C&I Roofto p y/y (%) Util ity Scal e/Grou nd-Mou nted y/y (%) PER CAPI TA PARAMETERS Popul ation (mi ll ion ) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Per Capita (W/ person) # Ho usehol ds (mil lio n) y/y (%) Average Solar Capacity Per 1000 Househol ds (kW) Average Solar In stal lation Requi red Per Househol ds (kW) % Househo ld Penetration # Incremental Ho usehold s I nstal li ng Sol ar ('000) 2002 0 -10% 2 2003 0 2004 1 2005 1 2006 1 2007 12 2008 30 2009E 44 2010E 87 2011E 200 2012E 460 -10% 2 186% 3 -3% 4 20% 6 900% 18 150% 48 45% 91 100% 178 130% 378 130% 838 -1% 0.8 0.01% 0 0. 957 131. 19 $0.26% 4.58) $0.2% 10 11.8 0. 070 $12. 26% 1.3 3. 26% 0.26% 0.9 0. 1 11.3 3.40 $0.0 1.39% 16.0 0. 0 0. 03% 13.10 -1% 4 18% 6 44% 6 30% 6 27% 7 215% 8 171% 9 91% 10 96% 11 112% 12 122% 13 22% 0. 01 30% 0.40 $0.2 3.8 0.0 0. 0 0.500 $19. 12 2% ($0. 0 1. 000 $33.20% 4 0.26% 75.81% 38 Source: Barclays Capital estimates.9 3. 000% 0.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 210: Greece Solar PV Demand Model Greece Annu al Sol ar In stal latio ns (MW) y/y (%) Cumul ati ve So lar Capaci ty (M W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Generated (Bil li on kWh) y/y (%) Renewabl e Electrici ty Gen erated (Bi ll ion kWh) y/y (%) Solar as % of Renewab les Overal l I nstall ed Capacity ('000 M W) y/y (%) Overal l Electrici ty Generated (Bill io n kWh) Convent ional Thermal Hydroelectric Power Nucl ear Power Ot her Renewables (Geo.Su bsidi zed Retail Electricity Price ($/ kWh) y/y (%) I NVESTM ENT RETURN PARAM ETERS T otal I nvestment I RR (%) Payb ack Peri od (Years) L AND AREA PARAMETERS Solar El ectri city Land Availab le (sq. 10 $0. 1 11. 9 10. km) Area (sq.4 3.5 1.9% 13 1% 51 47 3 0 1 6% 55 49 5 0 1 5% 56 50 5 0 1 3% 56 50 5 0 1 2% 55 48 6 0 2 2% 57 49 6 0 2 2% 58 50 6 0 2 2% 59 2% 60 2% 61 2% 62 2% 0. 0 11.5 1. 1% 11 0% 0.8 0.609 $9.63 17% ($0.13 2% ($0.9% 13 10% 15.0 0.26% 5. 8 0. 1 11. 13 $0. 19% 1. 42 $0.54 $0.500 16% 10.6 3. 3 3.01 44% 0.45 112% 0.1% 13 10% 7.23 96% 0. 42 $0. 04% 1 0.65% 2% 3.0 0. 08% 14.36% 21. 38 $0. 0 1. 007% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 8 1 8 20 3 11 28 4 22 57 9 50 130 20 115 299 46 10.11 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% $33.67% 2% 0. 42 $0.21% 15.0 0. 82% 17 1. 26% 24.2 0.500 16% 5.18) $0.26% 0.2 0. 0 0.9 0.957 131. EIA.9 3.500 16% 11.70% 1% 0.500 $30.02% 10.26% 0. 0 3.Unsubsi dized Subsi dies ($/ kWh) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) . 8 0.26% 0. 957 131.1 3.2% 5 24. 39% 7 0. 0 -8% $0.000% 0.22% 2% 1.8 0.8 0.9 11.01 215% 0. 3% 4 131. 000 $28.01% 0 0. 26% 11.7% 7 17.500 16% 3.02% 11.9 10.25 $0. 2% 12 17% 0.2 3. 11 $0. 6 3. 1% 10 64% 0.5% 6 20. 000% 0.10% 2 0.01 27% 0.2 3. 500 16% 9.26% 54.53% 2% 0.5 1.26% 0. 95 122% 2.957 131.47% 2% 0.5 3.0 1.000% 0.957 131. 4 3. 74% 18. 90% 2% 0. 957 131.957 131. 00 $0.000% 0. 66 -20% $0.26% 0. 2009 .12 $0.018 0. 500 16% 4.001% 3. 9 0. 000% 0. 55) $0.0 0.0 3.00% 0.3 3. 00 $0.2% 12 10% 0. 55% 19. 0 0.3% 12 10% 2. 7 0.2 3.0% NA 6. 26% 0.15 $0.5% 12 10% 1.500 $17.41) $0. 70 2% ($0. 2 3.6 3. 08 $0.04 171% 0.

2009 169 . 8 0.018 0.38% 224 Source: Barclays Capital estimates.6 0. 2 128.5 0.9 129.3 0.17% 27.9 127.38% 15.727 377.07 34% 1. 9 49.3 0.0 48.17% 9.9% 268 10% 2.21 74% 102 58% 115 33% 115 27% 101 26% 106 16% 117 14% 129 18% 142 25% 156 26% 171 24% 188 0% 0.6% 253 10% 1.006% 129 8 24 174 11 33 205 13 38 234 15 44 234 15 44 184 12 35 184 12 35 267 17 50 454 28 85 590 37 111 678 42 127 126. 0 48.500 $24.17% 33.002% 8.5 0.29 $0. 500 16% 9. 500 16% 8.0 1.24% 2% 0. 20 24% 5. m) Co nversio n Efficien cy (%) Solar System Prices ($/W) y/y (%) Solar Electricity Price ($/kWh) .001% 3.9 3.0 1.002% 9.002% 11.000 $25. 13 $0. 070 $12.08% 11.5% 237 13% 0.51 58% 0.5 0.048 637 90 301 20 2% 1.112 2% 1.17% 4.23 $0. km) Area (sq.144 0% 1.7 0.0% NA 0.32 $0.001% 4.93% 195 2.25 $0.17% 21.20 $0.2 48.0% NA 0. 19 $0.500 16% 6.17% 14.00 -13% $0. 436 -21% 1. 98 14% 2.22% 88 1.5 128.36 26% 1. 727 377.5% 279 10% 2.17% 14.33% 58 0.4 0.0% NA 0.11 $0.04% 61 1. 3 0.9 3.83% -2% 0.61% 1.17% 31.0% NA 0. 71 16% 1.0 0. 015 631 93 268 22 2% 1.20 5% $0.8% 285 1% 999 617 82 280 21 2% 987 643 94 228 21 1% 1.17% 9.47% 68 0. 796 30% 3.17% 23. 0 1. 21 0% $0.13% 9.22% -1% 0.027 624 89 295 20 2% 1. 0 0.500 16% 3. 727 377. 30 $0. Solarbuzz May 01.001% 7. Solar.4 48.56% 2% 0. 500 16% 7. EIA.0 0.17% 13.11 $0.0% NA 0.7 128.21 0% $0. 19 -4% $0.069 2% 1.500 $19.20 0% $0.80 43% 1.11% 11.9 0.666 0% 1.30% 14.32 $0.29 $0.Subsidized Retail Electricity Price ($/kWh ) y/y (%) INVEST MENT RETURN PARAM ETERS T otal In vestment IRR (%) Payback Period (Years) L AND AREA PARAM ETERS Solar Electricity Lan d Availab le (sq .00 -16% $0. 381 74% 0.5 1.17% 45.17% 6.00 -8% $0.67% 3% 0. 1 0.1 0.3 3.0 0.0% NA 0.km)/kWh Requ ired % L and Covered with Solar SOLAR INST AL LATIONS BREAKDO WN Residential y/y (%) C&I Roo ftop y/y (%) Utility Scale/Gro und-M oun ted y/y (%) PER CAPITA PARAM ETERS Pop ulation (million ) y/y (%) Solar Electricity Per Capita (W/person) # Househ old s (million) y/y (%) Average Solar Capacity Per 1000 Househ olds (kW) Average Solar In stallation Required Per Ho useho lds (kW) % Ho usehold Pen etration # In cremental Ho useho lds In stalling So lar ('000) 2002 2003 218 2004 256 2005 292 2006 292 2007 230 2008 230 2009E 334 2010E 567 2011E 737 2012E 848 161 32% 378 35% 596 17% 852 14% 1.36 $0. 609 $9.727 377. 0 0. 134 2% 0.19% 11.230 70% 2.46% 16.5 1. 1 3.001% 5. 00 -6% $0.53% 150 1.2 127.15 $0.25 $0.7 3.00 -6% $0. 0 0.5 1.727 377. 3 0.7% 241 0% 0.0 0.533 15% 4.28% 2% 0.0 0.940 $15.727 377.28% 2% 0.65 25% 3. 5 1.0 1.8 48. 0 1.36 $0.500 $27. 7 48.00 -5% $0.0 -5% $0.7 0.4 127.17% 11. 13 $0.34 $0.4 0.7% 258 10% 1. 5 3.727 377.17% 27.727 377.4 48.3% 248 6% 1.727 377.15 $0.22 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% $28. W ind and Waste El ectric Power) y/y (%) Solar as % of O ver all Electricity Ren ewables as % of Overall Electricity ELECTRICITY PRICE PARAMETERS Ann ual Insolation (kWh/sq.0% NA 0.0 0. 19 $0. 500 16% 4.0% NA 0.17% 6. 0 128.0 0. 20 0% $0.00 -12% $0.500 16% 6.500 16% 8.37% 1% 0.6 3.00 0% $0.21% 0.17 -7% $0.34 $0.4 3. 25 18% 2. 8 128.7 0.8 3. 500 16% 9.0 0.32 26% 4. 2 0.7 0. 000 $22.7 48.500 $17.500 16% 5.5 1.19 $0.6 127..17% 3.0 0.Unsub sidized Sub sidies ($/kWh) y/y (%) Solar Electricity Price ($/kWh) .39% 2% 0.896 45% 2.91% 61 1. 00 -15% $0.004% 17.0 48.17% 57.23 $0.63% 77 0. 090 2% 1. 0 0.19 7% $0.17% 36.1 0.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 211: Japan Solar PV Demand Model Jap an Ann ual Solar In stallations (MW) y/y (%) Cu mu lative So lar Capacity (M W) y/y (%) Solar Electricity Gen erated (Billion kWh) y/y (%) Ren ewable Electricity Generated (Billion kWh) y/y (%) Solar as % of Ren ewables O ver all Installed Capacity ('000 MW) y/y (%) O ver all Electricity Generated (Billion kWh) Conventional Therm al Hydroelectric Power Nuclear Power Other Renewables (Geo.17% 10.727 2.003% 13. 500 16% 3.00 -6% $0.056 $10.22% 12.17% 18.7 48.0% NA 377.25% 13.79% 77 0.8% 263 10% 1.9% 244 -13% 1. 007 612 87 289 20 2% 1.05% 10.0% NA 0. 30 $0. 00 -20% $0.17% 17. 8 3.025 646 77 278 23 2% 1.2 3.005% 21.8 0. 727 377.17% 71.1% 274 10% 2.0% NA 0.40% 2% 0.

4 48. km)/kWh Requi red % Lan d Covered with Sol ar SOLAR INSTALLATIONS BREAKDOWN Resid enti al y/y (%) C&I Roofto p y/y (%) Util ity Scal e/Grou nd-Mou nted y/y (%) PER CAPI TA PARAMETERS Popul ation (mi ll ion ) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Per Capita (W/ person) # Ho usehol ds (mil lio n) y/y (%) Average Solar Capacity Per 1000 Househol ds (kW) Average Solar In stal lation Requi red Per Househol ds (kW) % Househo ld Penetration # Incremental Ho usehold s I nstal li ng Sol ar ('000) 2002 1 2003 1 2004 3 2005 5 2006 21 2007 42 2008 280 2009E 392 2010E 588 2011E 1.1 3.10 -8% $0.32 $0. 070 $12. 37% 2% 0.17% 2% 0. 0 0.3 0. 40% 55. 000 $28. 03% 78 1. 2 48.274 99. 0% 57 -8% 0.0 1. 8 48.40% 15. 03% 3 0.40% 0. 00 0% $0. 38 58% 0.500 $30.0% 5 22.61 4% ($0. 40% 27.71 16% ($0.40% 0. 1% 62 -5% 0.088 2012E 1. 274 99.1% 7 15.4 0. 000% 0.14% 1. 0 0% $0. 05% 1.850 16% 5.2 0.9% 4 25.11 $0. 9 0.63 -15% $0.94% 187 Source: Barclays Capital estimates.40% 78. 000% 0. 01% 2% 0.11% 5% 0.2 3. 52) $0. 0 0.8 0.01 363% 0.1% 63 10% 0. 60 0% ($0.0 48.4 0. 00 -5% $0.36% 6% 0.03% 1. 2 47. 000 $33.9 3.274 99.28) $0. 16 $0.40% 0. 34 $0. 40% 0.10 -4% ($0.00% 1.40% 0.000% 0. 0 1.00 11% 0.500 $17.5 1. 31 $0. 0 1. 0 0. Solarbuzz 170 May 01.2 0.056 $10.61 13% 4 11% 5 42% 5 59% 4 157% 4 122% 4 363% 5 110% 5 78% 6 81% 6 58% 7 -11% 0. 06% 6 0.29 $0.12 $0.0% 58 -14% 0.0 1.2 3. 07 $0.0 49.018 0.274 99.425 30% 3.27% 2% 0. 09% 1.12 78% 0. km) Area (sq. 3 16.7 0. 1 16. 1 0. 4 17.58 -5% $0.4 47. 850 16% 6.Unsubsi dized Subsi dies ($/ kWh) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) . 07 ($0.000% 0. 4 3. 000% 0.414 -25% 5 0% 6 317% 9 100% 14 324% 35 100% 77 560% 357 40% 749 50% 1.0 0. Sol ar. 000% 0. 8 49.01% 1 0. 40% 49. 0 0. 00% 1.52) $0. 000 $31.65 -12% $0.18 $0.0% NA 7. 09% 2% 0. 40% 1.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 212: South Korea Solar PV Demand Model South Ko rea Annu al Sol ar In stal latio ns (MW) y/y (%) Cumul ati ve So lar Capaci ty (M W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Generated (Bil li on kWh) y/y (%) Renewabl e Electrici ty Gen erated (Bi ll ion kWh) y/y (%) Solar as % of Renewab les Overal l I nstall ed Capacity ('000 M W) y/y (%) Overal l Electrici ty Generated (Bill io n kWh) Convent ional Thermal Hydroelectric Power Nucl ear Power Ot her Renewables (Geo. 40% 0. 00% 1. 6 48.40% 0.00 42% 0.0 0. 850 16% 4.51) $0.0% NA 0.40% 8.001% 2.500 $19.5 1.5 1.0 0.4 17.40% 17.850 16% 3.Su bsidi zed Retail Electricity Price ($/ kWh) y/y (%) I NVESTM ENT RETURN PARAM ETERS T otal I nvestment I RR (%) Payb ack Peri od (Years) L AND AREA PARAMETERS Solar El ectri city Land Availab le (sq. 3 0.2 16.274 99.00% 1. 68 -20% $0.0 0.0 0. 86% 144 2.27% 4% 0.274 99. 0 3.11 -4% ($0. 7 0.06 110% 0.00 157% 0.32) $0.0 0.28% 37 0. 850 16% 9.274 99.58% 7% 0. 26) $0. 1 0. 40% 31.40% 88.2% 66 10% 2.0 1. 2009 .6% 13 8. 3% 12 14. 0 0. 9% 4 99.40% 0. 4 17. 0 0. 0% 54 29% 0.11 -4% ($0. m) Con versi on Efficiency (%) Solar System Pri ces ($/W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) .3 3.10 -32% $0.3% 7 17. 3 3. 0 0.9 0. 274 99. 8% 71 5% 312 195 3 113 1 4% 324 196 5 123 0 3% 346 217 4 124 0 7% 366 223 4 139 0 2% 383 238 3 141 1 2% 390 242 3 144 1 2% 398 247 4 147 1 2% 406 2% 414 2% 423 2% 431 17% 0. 40% 1. 1 3.5 1. 002% 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 2 8 3 10 17 6 19 112 42 126 157 59 176 235 88 265 435 163 490 566 212 636 47.850 16% 11.850 16% 3.08 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% $33.00% 0.1% 70 10% 8.609 $9.40% 0.6 47.8 3.940 $15. Wi nd and Waste Electric Power) y/y (%) Solar as % of Overal l El ectri city Renewabl es as % o f Overall El ectr icity ELECTRI CI TY PRI CE PARAMETERS Annu al I nsol ati on (kWh /sq. EIA.850 16% 10. 34 $0.6 17.0 0.0 0. 34 $0.40% 0.1 16.274 0.59% 1.839 13% 0.21 81% 0. 2 0.3% 65 10% 1.00% 1.0 0.0 0.01% 1. 09 $0.00% 0 0.0 1.8 3.53) $0.850 16% 11.5% 6 21.3 0.01 122% 0.1 17. 11 $0. 10 -4% ($0.001% 1. 000% 0.0 0.01% 0 0.7 17.850 16% 6.58% 52 1. 00 59% 0..2% 14 7.52) $0. 09 -5% $0.00% 1.20 $0.274 99. 34 $0.850 16% 10.000% 0. 337 85% 2.274 99.7% 69 10% 6.40% 7.51) $0.71 -16% $0. 58 0% ($0. 3% 67 10% 3. 47% 2% 0.5 17.0 0.

7 0.8 5. 000% 1.9 115.867 2.39% 207 Source: Barclays Capital estimates.1 0.224 2.0 0.000% 4.11 $0. 0% NA 0.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 213: U.2% 995 10% 0.0% NA 0.97% 0.5 2. 0 2.0 0. 0 -8% $0.610 9.5 5.052 2012E 3.372.730 264 780 93 5% 3.000 16% 10.000% 1.0 2. EIA. 931 294 803 113 2% 4.372.09 $0.0% NA 0.759 276 764 94 2% 3.000 16% 3.825 268 789 97 2% 4.04% 11.7 5.000% 3.7 5. 97% 1.3 294. 97% 2.4 114. 02% 10.32% 2% 0. 82% 2% 0. Solarbuzz May 01.01% 2 0.1 0.0 2. 5 0. 0% NA 0.500 $50. Solar PV Demand Model US Annu al Sol ar In stal latio ns (MW) y/y (%) Cumul ati ve So lar Capaci ty (M W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Generated (Bil li on kWh) y/y (%) Renewabl e Electrici ty Gen erated (Bi ll ion kWh) y/y (%) Solar as % of Renewab les Overal l I nstall ed Capacity ('000 M W) y/y (%) Overal l Electrici ty Generated (Bill io n kWh) Convent ional Thermal Hydroelectric Power Nucl ear Power Ot her Renewables (Geo.000 16% 3.1 297. 080 2011E 2.372. 14 $0. 000 $55.372.0 0.53 36% 0. 1% 957 8% 0.7 308. 584 90% 4.0% NA 0. 539 205 1.10 $0.17 $0.610 9.5 291.Unsubsi dized Retail Electricity Price ($/ kWh) y/y (%) I NVESTM ENT RETURN PARAM ETERS T otal I nvestment I RR (%) Payb ack Peri od (Years) L AND AREA PARAMETERS Solar El ectri city Land Availab le (sq. 02% 4 0.42% 2% 0.6 106.9 110.11 -12% $0.97% 1. 97% 1.1 108.000 16% 11.000 16% 6. 02 75% 10.55 33% 0. 056 10% 0.97% 0.077 10% 1. 97% 5.2% 942 1% 0. 0 0.488 57 54% 169 16% 235 27% 319 25% 424 33% 564 57% 784 64% 1.616 349 285.97% 0.3 0.05% 21 0. 08% 13.000 16% 11.0% NA 0. 000 16% 4.015 10% 0.97% 2. 4% 1.27 $0.000 16% 10.482 2% 4.73 39% 1.8 0.11 -16% $0. 000% 10. 000% 1. 000 16% 9.372. 22% 122 0.19% 2% 0. 12 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% $55.979 2. 4 109.682 $15.48 31% 1. 32% 2% 0. 29 $0. 31 $0.30 $0. 8 0. 6 0.000% 18. 395 2% 4.4 0.2% 976 10% 0. Sol ar.610 9.000% 33.0 0. 97% 10. 03% 6 0. 6 5. 0 0. 10 $0.05% 12. 141 2.8 305.S.047 2.02 46% 1.500 $32.0 0. 08 $0.8 116. 58 33% 0.900 $25. 7 314. 8 107.28% 2% 0.572 3% 0.02% 3 0. 610 9. 060 2.01% 9.610 9.01% 9.5 0.6 111. 09 $0.636 70% 8.7 311.97% 1.5 5.3 0. 11% 64 0.01% 0.504 200% 2. 45% 2. 0% NA 0.990 300 819 115 2% 4.9 302..910 270 782 100 2% 4. 0 0.8 112.0 2.372.0 0. 000% 6.5 2. 000% 2.0% NA 0.97% 25. 09 $0.1 0.04% 11 0. 2% 885 3% 0.3 5. 1% 928 -1% 0.0 0.7 0. 000 $52. 372.144 0% 1.11% 0% 0.000 16% 5.0 0.0 0. 029 0.01% 9.308 2% 4. 2009 171 .01% 9. Wi nd and Waste Electric Power) y/y (%) Solar as % of Overal l El ectri city Renewabl es as % o f Overall El ectr icity ELECTRI CI TY PRI CE PARAMETERS Annu al I nsol ati on (kWh /sq.3 0. 116 $20. 97% 1. 610 1. 02% 9.6 5.97% 4.2 0.0 5. 8 5.11 -15% $0.6 0.372.55 39% 0.23% 15.9% 1.23% 1% 0.372.5 2.093 $17.0% NA 0.6% 1. m) Con versi on Efficiency (%) Solar System Pri ces ($/W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) .19 $0.7 0.11 $0.610 9. 97% 14.9 113.10 $0. 0% NA 0. 874 288 787 110 2% 4.610 9.59% 2% 0. 000 16% 6. 97% 8.036 10% 0.610 9.0 2.35 79% 6.3% 1.5 2. 372.8 5.97% 19.610 9.500 $29.97% 0. km)/kWh Requi red % Lan d Covered with Sol ar SOLAR INSTALLATIONS BREAKDOWN Resid enti al y/y (%) C&I Roofto p y/y (%) Util ity Scal e/Grou nd-Mou nted y/y (%) PER CAPI TA PARAMETERS Popul ation (mi ll ion ) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Per Capita (W/ person) # Ho usehol ds (mil lio n) y/y (%) Average Solar Capacity Per 1000 Househol ds (kW) Average Solar In stal lation Requi red Per Househol ds (kW) % Househo ld Penetration # Incremental Ho usehold s I nstal li ng Sol ar ('000) 2002 2003 66 2004 84 2005 105 2006 140 2007 220 2008 360 2009E 360 2010E 1. 000% 9 43 6 10 50 7 13 63 8 16 79 11 21 105 14 33 165 22 54 270 36 108 180 72 324 810 108 616 1.099 7% 3.01% 2 0.0 0. 5% 1.8 0. 000 $47. 54 2% 357 -4% 369 8% 366 -4% 370 33% 399 39% 439 46% 482 31% 531 72% 584 79% 642 75% 706 19% 0.062 2. 2 0. 31 $0.97% 1. 0 2.97% 3.95 72% 3.97% 0.610 9. 7 0.49% 2% 0.0% NA 9.892 2. 0 299.372.124 51% 0. km) Area (sq. 13% 14.8 288. 11 -20% $0.1 0.97% 0.

304.0 0.0% NA 9.0 368.900 9.450 16% 11.65% 0. 56% 1. 900 0.6 0.500 $30. 43 $0. 84% 2% 0. 01% 24.4 0.570 1. 39 $0.1 1. 0% 479 10% 0.8 1.30 65% 0. 00% 0 0.0 0.58% 2% 0. 0% 357 18% 0.288.000% 2.339.65% 0.000% 0. 65% 0.0 380.560. 65% 0.16 $0.00% 21.8 0.00% 0 0. 070 $12.0% NA 0.5 1.0 1.900 9.8 1.450 16% 11.8 0. 450 16% 9.07 -12% $0.1 0. 0 1. 0 370. 65% 0.12% 2% 0. 560.11 62% 0.00% 0 0.080 1. 313.0 0.5 1.900 9. 450 16% 4. 5 0.484 279 42 2 10% 2.0 3.0% NA 0.01 NM 0.372 1. 0 -8% $0.0 3. 08 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% $33. 5 393. 000% 0.0 378.07 -16% $0.00% 4 Source: Barclays Capital estimates.8 1.4 0.567 2% 2.08 -15% $0.08 45% 0. 1 0. 2009 .Unsubsi dized Retail Electricity Price ($/ kWh) y/y (%) I NVESTM ENT RETURN PARAM ETERS T otal I nvestment I RR (%) Payb ack Peri od (Years) L AND AREA PARAMETERS Solar El ectri city Land Availab le (sq.1 3.00% 15.02 100% 0.702 328 48 2 13% 2.00% 0 0.900 9. 000% 1.296.65% 0.0 0.7 1.330.0 1.00% 0 0.00% 0.0 0. 0% NA 0.56% 2% 0.65% 0. 20 $0.00 NM 0.0% NA 0. 0% NA 0.671 2% 2.056 $10. km)/kWh Requi red % Lan d Covered with Sol ar SOLAR INSTALLATIONS BREAKDOWN Resid enti al y/y (%) C&I Roofto p y/y (%) Util ity Scal e/Grou nd-Mou nted y/y (%) PER CAPI TA PARAMETERS Popul ation (mi ll ion ) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Per Capita (W/ person) # Ho usehol ds (mil lio n) y/y (%) Average Solar Capacity Per 1000 Househol ds (kW) Average Solar In stal lation Requi red Per Househol ds (kW) % Househo ld Penetration # Incremental Ho usehold s I nstal li ng Sol ar ('000) 2002 0 2003 0 2004 5 2005 15 2006 20 2007 24 2008 29 2009E 58 2010E 104 2011E 166 2012E 232 NM 0 NM 0 NM 5 200% 20 33% 40 20% 64 20% 93 100% 150 80% 254 60% 420 40% 652 NM 0.724 11% 0.65% 0.279.3 0.0 3. 0% NA 0.5 1.00% 16. 000 413 52 2 2% 2.900 9.2 0.0 3. 07 $0. 000 $28. 00% 19. 1% 508 6% 1.018 0.0% NA 0. 321.450 16% 3. 00% 2 0. 0 0.900 9.0 0. 0 375. m) Con versi on Efficiency (%) Solar System Pri ces ($/W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) .65% 0. 900 9.365. 65% 0. 3 1. 49 55% 0.0% 460 10% 0.41 $0.65% 0.0% NA 0. 000 $33.940 $15.14 $0. 1 0.0% 488 10% 0.4 1.609 $9.00% 1 0. 0% 339 2% 0. 00% 0 0.500 $19.65% 0.900 9. 450 16% 6.560. Wi nd and Waste Electric Power) y/y (%) Solar as % of Overal l El ectri city Renewabl es as % o f Overall El ectr icity ELECTRI CI TY PRI CE PARAMETERS Annu al I nsol ati on (kWh /sq.560. 961 405 51 2 2% 2.000% 0.37 $0.922 397 50 2 2% 2. 77% 2% 0.517 2.7 0. 12 $0.2 388.450 16% 6.0 1. 65% 0.3 390.4 1.00% 15.5 1.0% 391 21% 0.0 373.450 16% 3.65% 0.450 16% 10.560.1 385. 000% 0.560.01% 22.0 0. 07 $0. 0 0.65% 0.0% NA 0. 619 2% 2.000% 3. 00% 18.040 421 53 3 2% 2.900 9. 65% 0.271 272 25 2 5% 1. 00% 3 0.65% 0.0 3.16% 2% 0. 419 1. km) Area (sq. Sol ar. 55% 15% 0. 46% 15% 0. 43 $0.3 0.0% 469 10% 0.65% 0.07 $0.900 9.0 1.450 16% 5.65% 0.77 NM 274 NM 281 30% 330 29% 399 100% 439 60% 483 45% 532 62% 585 69% 643 65% 707 55% 778 5% 0.0 0. 0 3. 0% 442 10% 0. Solarbuzz 172 May 01. 000% 0.0 3.0 0.807 1.560. 468 2.87% 14% 0. 07 $0. 0% NA 0. 65% 0.560.560.5 0.24 $0. 02% 26.. 1 3.03% 28.000% 0.560.49% 2% 0.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 214: China Solar PV Demand Model Chi na Annu al Sol ar In stal latio ns (MW) y/y (%) Cumul ati ve So lar Capaci ty (M W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Generated (Bil li on kWh) y/y (%) Renewabl e Electrici ty Gen erated (Bi ll ion kWh) y/y (%) Solar as % of Renewab les Overal l I nstall ed Capacity ('000 M W) y/y (%) Overal l Electrici ty Generated (Bill io n kWh) Convent ional Thermal Hydroelectric Power Nucl ear Power Ot her Renewables (Geo.1 383.26 $0. 560.5 0.05 60% 0. EIA.07 $0.0 3.2 0. 347. 0 3.65% 0.356. 0 1.0 1. 3 0. 02 300% 0. 07 -20% $0.1 0. 1 0.00% 17. 0 0.1% 498 10% 0.18 69% 0. 000% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 2 12 1 3 16 1 4 19 1 4 23 3 9 46 5 16 83 8 25 133 12 35 186 1.0% 451 10% 0.0 0.450 16% 10. 000% 0. 1 0. 65% 0.0 0.500 $17.5 1.07 $0. 000 $31.

00 $0.2% 140 10% 0. Sol ar.0 1. 0 1. 000% 0.0 1.00% 2 0.5 1.40 $0.000 $13..287. 8 222. 8 0.01% 9 Source: Barclays Capital estimates.287.3 0.55% 0. 11 $0.05 0% ($0.00 $0.6 0.55% 0.13 $0. 38 $0. 149.8 1. 000% 1. 098.36 $0.6 1.000% 16.0 2. 00% 0 0. 0 1. 55% 0.04 ($0.000% 0.4 1.36 $0. 2009 173 .500 16% 3.00% 0 0.2 1.40 $0.0 1.04 $0.263 3.012 0. 55% 0.287.5 1.0% NA 0.8 1.0 1. 073 $6.0% NA 0. 30 0% $0.24 33% 0.9 0. 046 $8.10% 21. 000% 5.07) $0. 2% 138 10% 0. 01% 6 0. 55% 0. 55% 0. 03% 17. 31% 25. 000 $19.500 16% 5.04 $0.15 $0.46 62% 0. 6 0.55% 0. 263 0.Su bsidi zed Retail Electricity Price ($/ kWh) y/y (%) I NVESTM ENT RETURN PARAM ETERS T otal I nvestment I RR (%) Payb ack Peri od (Years) L AND AREA PARAMETERS Solar El ectri city Land Availab le (sq.30 -15% $0.00% 1 0.287.263 3.25 $0.287.15) $0. 05% 18.55% 0. 001% 0 0 0 1 9 1 1 11 1 1 14 2 1 10 1 1 15 2 2 27 3 3 53 6 6 101 12 11 192 23 19 327 38 1.0 1. 5% 10 3. 7 0.263 3.115.0 1.500 16% 10. 000% 3.8 1. Wi nd and Waste Electric Power) y/y (%) Solar as % of Overal l El ectri city Renewabl es as % o f Overall El ectr icity ELECTRI CI TY PRI CE PARAMETERS Annu al I nsol ati on (kWh /sq. EIA.5 1.287.7 1. 19 $0.287. 0 1.55% 0.287. 00 $0.185.500 16% 6.263 3. 0 199. 05 0% ($0. 500 16% 4.00% 11. km) Area (sq.02% 13.3 0.55% 0. m) Con versi on Efficiency (%) Solar System Pri ces ($/W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) .74 73% 1.53% 27.31 45% 0.0 2.1 209. 99% 6% 0.1 2.14 118% 0.0 202. 55% 0. 12% 2% 0.263 3.000% 9.25 $0. 081.9 0. 0 -8% $0.7% 152 10% 1.04 NM 68 NM 80 13% 90 14% 107 30% 117 33% 129 45% 142 62% 156 73% 172 80% 189 76% 208 -12% 0.0 1.263 3. 2% 126 13% 0.0 0.000% 1.00% 0 0.000 $20. 00 $0. 2 2. 263 3. 0 2. 00 $0.00% 0. 81% 2% 0. 04 $0.0 2. 0 1.263 3. 0 2.5 1.24% 5% 0.55% 0.1 0.016. 42 $0. 55% 0.2% 143 10% 0.52% 2% 0.8 1.500 16% 3.55% 0. 0% 122 18% 0.287.55% 0.9% 11 10.0 196.500 16% 11. 05 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% $22.06% 20.0 2. 000 $21.3% 16 7. 38 $0. 3% 19 6. 29% 5% 0. 1 1.5 1.39% 2% 0.05 0% ($0. 16 67% 0. 18% 23.960 $10.0 1. 17) $0.55% 0. 55% 0.0 1. 04 $0.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 215: India Solar PV Demand Model I ndi a Annu al Sol ar In stal latio ns (MW) y/y (%) Cumul ati ve So lar Capaci ty (M W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Generated (Bil li on kWh) y/y (%) Renewabl e Electrici ty Gen erated (Bi ll ion kWh) y/y (%) Solar as % of Renewab les Overal l I nstall ed Capacity ('000 M W) y/y (%) Overal l Electrici ty Generated (Bill io n kWh) Convent ional Thermal Hydroelectric Power Nucl ear Power Ot her Renewables (Geo.167. 55% 0.2% 155 10% 1.1 206. 500 16% 6.0% NA 0.0 1. 287.037 $7. 0% NA 0.4 219.0 2. 5% 149 10% 0.55% 0.3% 146 10% 0. 0 193.8 1.30 -12% $0.132.19) $0.2% 131 19% 0.23 $0.064. 30 -20% $0.3 1.03% 14.36% 2% 0.000 $11.2 215.0% NA 0.0 1.04 0% ($0.30 -16% $0.55% 0.Unsubsi dized Subsi dies ($/ kWh) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) .0 1.0 1. 0% NA 5.22% 2% 0. km)/kWh Requi red % Lan d Covered with Sol ar SOLAR INSTALLATIONS BREAKDOWN Resid enti al y/y (%) C&I Roofto p y/y (%) Util ity Scal e/Grou nd-Mou nted y/y (%) PER CAPI TA PARAMETERS Popul ation (mi ll ion ) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Per Capita (W/ person) # Ho usehol ds (mil lio n) y/y (%) Average Solar Capacity Per 1000 Househol ds (kW) Average Solar In stal lation Requi red Per Househol ds (kW) % Househo ld Penetration # Incremental Ho usehold s I nstal li ng Sol ar ('000) 2002 2003 11 2004 13 2005 16 2006 12 2007 17 2008 31 2009E 63 2010E 119 2011E 226 2012E 384 NM 0 NM 11 18% 24 23% 40 -25% 52 45% 69 80% 101 100% 163 90% 282 90% 509 70% 893 NM NM 0. 0 0. 42 $0.28 80% 2. 35% 1.7 1.00% 0 0. 000% 0.55% 0.18 30% 0.048.00 $0. 8% 13 8.0 0.500 16% 11.4 1.263 3. 42 $0.5 1.8 1. 287. 00% 0 0.1 2.0 2.000% 1. 9 1. 42 $0.0 1. Solarbuzz May 01.7 1.11) $0.1 212.032. 9% 158 9% 565 480 63 18 4 3% 601 504 75 16 5 4% 632 527 84 15 6 5% 662 539 99 16 8 2% 675 550 101 16 8 2% 688 561 103 16 8 2% 702 572 105 17 8 2% 716 2% 731 2% 745 2% 760 3% 0.0 1. 04 $0.500 16% 10.03% 16. 500 16% 9. 2 1. 30 76% 4.75% 2% 0.0 190.263 3. 00% 3 0.55% 0. 000 $22.

Solar Energy Handbook 174 May 01. 2009 .

Renewable Portfolio Standards May 01.Solar Energy Handbook Chapter 8: Overview of U. 2009 175 .S.

5% by 2024 IA: 105 MW by 1999 IL: 25% by 2025 MO : 11% by 2020 AZ: 15% by 2025 NM: 20% by 2020 (IOUs) 10% by 2020 (co-ops) NC: 12.5% by 2021 OH: 12. DC have RPS in place.5% by 2021 (IOUs) 10% by 2018 (co-ops and munis) HI: 20% by 2020 TX : 5. Currently 28 states and Washington. and Vermont.5% by 2020 NJ: 22. Three states passed Mandatory RPS laws in 2008. The Renewable Portfolio Standards encourages competition among developers to meet targets in a least cost manner. RPS have been in existence at the state level since the 1990s. Note: Michigan and Missouri has since passed a mandatory RPS law 176 May 01. 2009 . Missouri. five states have non binding goals North Dakota.880 MW by 2015 Mandatory RPS Non-Binding Goal Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Michigan and Ohio. Utah. Virginia. 8% by 2025 MA: 4% by 2009 +1%/yr RI: 16% by 2019 CT: 23% by 2020 DE: 20% by 2019 DC: 11% by 2022 MD: 20% by 2022 V A: 12% by 2022 MT: 15% by 2015 ND: 10% by 2015 OR: 25% by 2025 (large utilities) 5-10% by 2025 (smaller utilities) NV: 20% by 2015 UT: 20% by 2025 CA: 20% by 2010 CO: 20% by 2020 (IOUs) 10% by 2020 (co-ops and munis) SD: 10% by 2015 PA: 8. including the trading of renewable energy certificates (RECs). Renewable Portfolio Standards The Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) require retail electricity suppliers to procure a minimum amount of eligible renewable energy. Policies are backed by various compliance enforcement mechanisms.Solar Energy Handbook U.S. Figure 216: Mandatory and Non Binding Renewable Energy Goals WA: 15% by 2020 MN: 25% by 2025 Xcel: 30% by 2020 WI: 10% by 2015 ME: 40% by 2017 VT: 20% by 2017 NY: 24% by 2013 NH: 23. In addition. South Dakota.

Senate Bill 19 determined the RPS to be 20 percent of sales by 2019. and compliance failure results in higher penalty payments. 2 percent of total sales must be from solar power.11-399. Bonus credits are given to renewable generation within the State. Proposition C. mandates a 2-percent renewable energy requirement in 2011. with subsequent 1-percent annual increases to 2014. Solar technologies receive triple credits. Penalty payments for “Tier 1” compliance shortfalls were also raised to 4 cents per kilowatthour under the same legislation. The State also has necessary payments for compliance shortfalls. a mandate of 30 percent renewable generation by 2000 was set to be lower than current generation. Public Utilities Code Sections 399. The years leading up to 2017 also have new capacity milestones. approved by voters. House Bill 1281 sets the renewable target for investor-owned utilities at 20 percent by 2020. 69127 requires 15 percent of electricity sales to be renewable by 2025. Public Act 295 established an RPS that will require 10 percent renewable generation by 2015. Senate Bill 4 created a 30-percent renewable requirement by 2020 for Xcel. which has two interim milestones. Public Law 403 added to the State’s RPS requirements. Moreover. Also specified was the creation of a State cap-and-trade program that will assist the program’s implementation. In-State generation receives a 25-percent credit premium. including a 2-percent solar target.5 times the credit amount. the State’s largest supplier. with interim goals increasing annually. 3 percent may be met by waste-to-energy facilities and conventional biomass. The new law requires a 10-percent increase in renewable capacity by 2017. CO CT DE HI IL IA ME MD MA MI MN MO Source: EIA May 01. and that level must be maintained in subsequent years. The plan also includes a cap on the incremental costs added from renewable penetration. which will increase incrementally to 15 percent of generation by 2021. Senate Bill 3185 sets the renewable mandate at 20 percent by 2020. and a 25percent requirement by 2025 for others. There is a 10-percent requirement in the same year for cooperatives and municipals. possibly limiting renewable generation to less than the 20-percent requirement. 2009 177 . and offshore wind receives 3.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 217: State Description of RPS Policies State AZ CA Description Arizona Corporate Commission Decision No. All existing renewable facilities are eligible to meet the target. Bonus credits are given to solar energy. Multiple credits may be given for solar generation and in-State manufactured systems. The RPS has a goal of a 4-percent renewable share of total sales by 2009. A specific percentage of the target must be from distributed generation. including a 4-percent mandate from higher efficiency or CHP systems. House Bill 375 revised the RPS to contain a 20-percent target by 2022. Renewable projects with above-market costs will be funded by supplemental energy payments from a fund. There are escalating annual targets. Public Act 095-0481 created an agency responsible for overseeing the mandate of 25-percent renewable sales by 2025. Of the overall total. An RPS mandating 105 megawatts of renewable energy capacity has already been exceeded. and 75 percent of the requirements must be generated from wind. Originally. There are also goals for the longer term.20 mandate that 20 percent of electricity sales must be renewable by 2010. In 2007. Public Act 07-242 mandates a 27-percent renewable sales requirement by 2020. There is a separate requirement for solar generation (2 percent of the total).

There are different requirements for different technologies. with wind and solar each accounting for 20 percent of the target. which specifies that 15 percent of sales from the State’s largest generators must come from renewable sources by 2020. Initially the law covered only public utilities. Senate Bill 20 strengthened the State RPS by mandating 5.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 218: State Description of RPS Policies State MT NV Description House Bill 681 expanded the RPS provisions to all suppliers.880 megawatts of renewable capacity by 2015. The Public Service Commission issued RPS rules in 2005 that call for an increase in renewable electricity sales to 24 percent of the total by 2013. The renewable portfolio must consist of diversified technologies. Through 2018. Senate Bill 459 strengthened the State RPS with a requirement that. from the current level of 19 percent. The program requires that 16 percent of total sales be renewable by 2020. increasing to 40 percent in later years. Compliance penalties vary by generation type. NH NJ NM NY NC OH OR PA RI TX WA WI Source: EIA 178 May 01. Any source of renewable electricity on line after 1995 is considered eligible. There is also a 10-percent requirement by 2018 for cooperatives and municipals. and 16. 25 percent of the target may be met through efficiency standards. The State has an escalating renewable target. each utility’s renewable share of total generation must be at least 6 percentage points above the renewable share from 2001 to 2003. Up to one-quarter may be met through efficiency measures. the RPS was revised to increase renewable energy targets. which receive bonus credits. Senate Bill 418 directs investor-owned utilities to have 20 percent of their sales from renewable generation by 2020. The interim program targets escalate more rapidly in later years. The program is administered and funded by the State. established in 1997 and revised in 2005. including low-carbon and renewable technologies. There is also a minimum requirement for PV systems. Senate Bill 838 required renewable targets of 25 percent by 2025 for large utilities and 5 to 10 percent by 2025 for smaller utilities. but there is also a provision that allows certain coal resources to receive credits. M i i l d ti t In June 2007. Senate Bill 221 requires 25 percent of electricity to be produced from alternative energy resources by 2025. In 2006. by 2015. The State operates a REC market.5 percent by 2021 for investor-owned utilities. 2009 . Compliance penalty caps have not yet been determined. One-half of the target must come from renewable sources. with interim targets.5 percent of sales by 2021. House Bill 873 legislated that 23. There is a separate standard of 10 percent by 2020 for cooperatives. There is an administrative penalty of 5 cents per kilowatthour for noncompliance. The current level for renewable generation is 22.3 percent of total sales must be from renewable facilities that begin operation after 2006. There is also a target of 500 megawatts of renewable capacity other than wind. The Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard has an18-percent requirement by 2020. that reaches 20 percent of total electricity sales by 2015. Generation from any facility that came on line after 1999 is eligible. Voters approved Initiative 937. A 15percent share of sales must be renewable by 2015.8 percent of electricity sales must be renewable by 2025. Senate Bill 3 created an RPS of 12. Most of the qualifying generation must be renewable. a generator must pay an alternative compliance penalty. There is also a non-binding goal. If the target is not met. including a 2-percent solar mandate.

film PV Tidal & river turbines Silicon PV Cofired biomass Direct-fired biomass Onshore wind Nano-structured PV Hydro Time Source: Barclays Capital research May 01.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 219: Qualifying Renewable Energy Resources Stat e Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Delawar e Distr ict of Columbia Hawaii Illinois Iowa Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missour i Montana Nevada New Hampshire New Jer sey New Mexico New Yor k Nor th Carolina Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island Texas Washington Wisconson Wind √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Photo volt aics √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Solar Thermal √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Biomass √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Geotherm al √ √ √ √ √ Small Hydro electric Fuel Cells √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Land Fill G as √ √ √ √ √ Tidal/ O cean √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Wave/ T hermal √ √ √ √ √ Energy Eff iciency √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Source: Barclays Capital Research Figure 220: Life Cycle Positions of Various Technologies Resea rch Developm ent Demonstration De ployment Mature Technolo gy Dish-Stirling STE Biomass gasification Anticipated Cost of Full-Scale Application Wave Concentrating PV Central receiv STE er Geot hermal O ffshore wind Parabolic-trough STE Thin. 2009 179 .

Solar Energy Handbook

Additions in RPS States by Clean Technology Type Of the more than 8,900 MW of new non-hydro renewable energy capacity that come on line in RPS states from 1998–2007, roughly 93% has come from wind power alone. Although renewable resource diversity has so far been limited, it is expected to increase. Figure 221:Annual Capacity Additions

Source: Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory

Figure 222:Total Capacity Additions (1998–2007)

Source: Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory

180

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Capacity Required to Meet State RPS Policies It is estimated that 71 GW of cumulative new capacity will be needed to fully meet policies by 2025. This is the equivalent of 5.5% of projected 2025 electricity generation, or 18% of projected electricity demand growth. This includes 14GW of required capacity by 2010 and 34GW by 2015. The largest markets in terms of capacity growth requirements are California, Illinois, Ohio, Minnesota, Texas, New Jersey, and Arizona. Each of these states require over 3,000MW of new capacity. In terms of additions as a percentage of expected retail sales in 2025, Minnesota, Oregon, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Delaware each require more than 15% of statewide load. Figure 223: New Renewable Capacity needed by 2025 (Nameplate MW)
California Illinois Ohio Minnesota Te xa s New Jerse y Arizona Maryla nd Pennsylva nia Wa shingto n Ma ssachuset ts Orego n Co lo rado Ne w Yo rk No rth Carolina Conne cticut W isconsin N ew M exico Nevada Delawa re New Hampshire M ontana Ma ine Rhode Isla nd Haw aii I owa D.C .
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

Figure 224: New Renewable Generation Needed by 2025 as a Percent of Projected Statewide Retails Sales
Minnesota Orego n M assachuset ts Conne cticut New Jerse y New Hampshire New Mexico Delaw are Rhode Isla nd Illinois Ma ryland Nevada Ohio California Wa shingto n Co lo rado Arizona M ontana Ma ine Pennsylva nia W isconsin Ne w Yo rk Haw aii Texa s No rth Carolina Iowa D.C .
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Source: Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory

Source: Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory

2020 Different Renewable Mix Across Regions The Southwest region of the U.S. is expected to produce the most renewable energy as a percentage of regional electric generation. Wind power is facing increasing competition in California (WSCC/CNV) from solar and geothermal. States expected to have most electricity generated from wind include Texas, Minnesota, and New Mexico. The impact of the RPS is expected to be greater in sta tes located in the Midwest and the West.

May 01, 2009

181

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 225: Different Renewable Mix Across Regions
Wi nd 100% % of Capacity Additions (Nameplate MW) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
New England New York & Mid(CT, MA, ME, NH, Atlantic RI) (DC, DE, MD, NJ, PA)
Source: Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory

B iomass

Geothermal

Solar

To tal MW (right axis) 5,000 Capacity Additions (Nameplate MW) 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0

California

Non-CA W est (AZ, CO, HI, MT, NM, NV)

Midwest (IA, IL, MN, WI)

Texas

Figure 226: RPS Impacts on Residential Electricity Bills

Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Barclays Capital Research

182

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 227: Carbon Reduction and Displacement Rate
Displaced Emissions Rate in 1st Peak Target Yr. (MTCO2/MWh) 1.00 US Electric Sec tor Average Emissions Rate Conventional Coal Plant E mis sions Rate 30 25 20 0.50 NGCC Plant Em issions Rate 15 10 0.25 5 0.00 WA (Tellus) NY (DPS) NY (CCAP ) CO (PPC) TX (UCS) NY (ICF) AZ RI (PIRG) (Tellus) OR (Tellus) MA (SE A) VA (CEC) CA (UCS) CA ( Tellus ) CO (UCS ) WI (UCS) 0 CO2 Reductions in 1st Peak Target Yr. (Million metric tons)

0.75

Displaced Em issions Rate CO2 Reduc tions

Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Barclays Capital research

State RPS Policies Continue to Differ Widely The individual state policies are tailored to satisfy individual state objectives. Variations exist in terms of renewable energy resource purchase targets and timeframes, eligibility of various clean technologies, compliance flexibility, and types of enforcement applied. Tiered targets or set-asides are often used to support “preferred” resources, instead of the least cost option. Eligibility rules for geographic location and electricity delivery are used to stimulate new resource development in particular regions. Other state by state variations include allowance of unbundled RECs, whether and what types of cost caps exist, and the role of state funding mechanisms. Federal RPS Proposal In February 2009, Senators Tom and Mark Udall introduced legislation calling for a Federal Renewable Electricity Standard that would require utilities to generate 25% of their electricity from wind, solar and other renewable energy sources by 2025. The bill would require utilities to initially provide 6% of their electricity from renewable resources by 2012, and increase that level to 25% by 2025. While this legislation is still being debated in congress, industry and political experts are optimistic that it will be eventually be enacted into law.

May 01, 2009

183

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 228: States Enacting Renewable Portfolio Standards

Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Barclays Capital Research

184

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 229: State RPS Ex emptions

Source: Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory , Barclays Capita l research

Unbundled RECs and Electronic Tracking Systems Renewable Energy Credits are now widely used as the preferred means of demonstrating RPS compliance. There are multiple state and regional markets, and contracting practices vary greatly among them. The separate market of “unbundled” RECs are easier to trade but do not protect local generation. Most states have opted to allow use of unbundled RECs. States are increasingly using electronic certificate tracking systems to issue, record, track, and retire RECs.

May 01, 2009

185

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 230: States Allowing Unbundled RECs

Source: Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory , Barclays Capita l Research

Compliance Outcome Thus Far In 2006, the weighted average compliance level was 94% (nine states had over 95% compliance). It has become evident that a number of states struggled to meet their targets including Arizona, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, and New York. Some of the reasons for this include insufficient funding, difficult project development climates, targets not met on schedule, and changing regula tory treatment of RECs. In addition, sta tes with specific solar requirements also had mixed success. In the case of states that do not meet their target, alternative compliance payments (ACPs) are required instead. These payments are recycled to support renewable energy through other means. In 2006, $18.2 million was paid in the form of ACPs. In addition to ACPs, some states have compliance waivers and opportunities to make up purchase shortfalls in later years. Only in Connecticut in 2006 and Texas in 2003 and 2005 had there been examples of explicit enforcement actions. A key barrier to achieving these RPS ta rgets is adequate transmission lines. California does not believe it will be able to reach the states 20% RPS by 2010 due to insufficient transmission. In addition, Nevada power has expressed a need for new transmission lines, while New Hampshire has enacted legislation requiring the Public Utilities Commission to conduct a study on expanding transmission. At this point Texas, Colorado, California, and Minnesota have plans to rebuild their transmission. In addition, seven states have formed transmission infrastructure authorities to issue revenue bonds for new transmission.

186

May 01, 2009

market. as well as 75% of all grid PV installations outside of California.C. and the already established set aside in Colorado was expanded.S. In 2008.4x multipl ier for central PV 2.5% solar elec tr ic by 2024 MD: 2% so lar electric b y 2022 AZ : 4. new solar or distributed generation set asides were created in Delaware.1x multipl ier for sola r 2007-09 NC: 0. Barclays Capita l Research May 01. only Arizona.8% so lar electric by 2020 (half from customer-site d proje cts) 1.5% PV by 2020 OH: 0.25x multipli er for in -state projects 3x mul tipl ier for co-ops and muni s for solar insta lled before July 2015 NM: 4 % solar electric by 2020.0 05% so lar electric by 20 3x multiplier for solar instal led before 2015 DC: 0.12% s olar electric b y 202 1 PA: 0 . 0. First Compliance Year 20 01 20 07 20 08 20 08 TBD 20 03 20 10 20 04 20 11 20 06 20 10 20 09 20 06 20 07 Photovoltaics ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Resourc e Eligibility Solar Thermal Solar Heating Electric and/or Cooling ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Non-PV D ist.Solar Energy Handbook Differential Support for Solar Energy in State RPS Policies Currently set asides are used to support central and distributed solar energy in 13 of the 28 states and Washington DC.3 % solar ele ctr ic by 2014 NY: 0. Of states with set asides. 2009 187 . the largest U.1542% customer -s ited DG by 2013 NV: 1% so lar by 2015 2.5% c ustomer -sited DG by 2025 (hal f from reside ntia l) CO: 0. Figure 231: States with Solar or DG Set Asides WA: 2x multip lier fo r DG NH: 0. New Hampshire. In 2007.45x mul tipl ier for d istributed PV MA: % TBD for DG NJ: 2. Barclays Capita l research Figure 232: States with Solar Set Aside State Arizona Colorado Delaware Maryland Massachusetts Nevada New Hampsh ir e New Jersey New Mexico New York Nor th C ar olin a Ohio Pennsylvania Washington D. From 2000–07.2% s olar b y 20 18 Set-aside Set-aside with multiplier Multiplier TX: 2x multip lier fo r a ll n on-w in d Source: Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory . Nevada. This represents 22% of all grid PV installations in the country over this period. Generation ● ● ● ● Source: Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory . North Carolina. 102MW of grid connected PV capacity was added in states with setasides. and New Jersey have four or more years of operational experience.6% DG by 2 015 DE: 2. Massachusetts and Ohio created solar set asides.386% so lar electric b y 2021 1. New Mexico.

000 6. Barclays Capital research States with the Highest Capacity Potential The largest set aside driven solar markets in terms of required capacity are Arizona. there must be an average of 100MW/year in solar capacity additions from 2008–10.450MW by 2015. and Ohio. assuming full compliance is achieved.Solar Energy Handbook Solar Capacity Required to Meet Existing Set Asides A cumulative 560 MW of solar capacity is required by these policies by 2010. Maryland.000 900 AZ Cumulative Solar Capacity (MW) Annual Solar Additions ( MW) 7. Solar Generation as a proportion of expected 2025 statewide load. and New Jersey. followed by 300MW/year from 2011 to 2014 and 600 MW/year from 2015–21. and 2% or more in Arizona. In order for these targets to be met. significant growth will also be required in New Mexico. Colorado. 5. Nevada.000 5. New Jersey.000 1. Figure 233: Timeline of Annual and Cumulative Solar Additions 8. Pennsylvania. In the next several years.550MW by 2025. This number will grow to 2. and 7.870 MW by 2020.000 3.000 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Ann ual Capaci ty (ri ght axis) Cum ulative Capacity (l eft axis) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 NJ MD OH PA NM NC MO DE NV CO DC NH NY Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.000 2. and Pennsylvania.1% in New Mexico. Maryland. 188 May 01. may be as high was 3. 2009 .000 4.

4% 1.4% 2.60 0 MW 160 MW 190 MW 1.6% 0.2% 0.550 MW 2025 Solar Generation as a % of State Load 2.3% 2.4% n/a Note: Data are presented in direct-current units. Total 2010 Capacity 110 MW 29 MW 0.5% 0.0% 0.50 0 MW 180 MW 35 MW 1.5 MW 5 60 MW 2025 Capacity 1. Barclays Capital research May 01. at Standard Test Conditions Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 234: States with the Highest Capacity Potential State Arizona Colorado Delaware Maryland Nevad a New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania Washington D.1% 3. 2009 189 .1% 0.0% 0.C.5% 0.60 0 MW 420 MW 15 MW 280 MW 820 MW 690 MW 54 MW 7.0% 0.5 MW 14 MW 76 MW 4 MW 210 MW 64 MW 10 MW 5 MW 14 MW 25 MW 0.

Barclays Capital research Current Necessity for Solar Set Asides Traditional RPS policies with no differential support for solar are unlikely to provide meaningful increases in solar electric generation. or else multipliers must be set at higher levels. There. customer-sited projects. California may be one of the only exceptions where meaningful solar activity is occurring without specified solar set-asides. but no share requirements. with an overt action to remove contracting barriers for small. States that only have credit multipliers for solar. due to the cost and solicitation barriers stemming from their small individual size. utilities have already signed contracts with 4+GW of solar thermal electric capacity as of February 2009. This reflects the fact that credit multipliers have not been large enough to spur heightened interest. particularly customer-sited PV. have not yet seen significant solar additions. for an RPS to substantially benefit solar. 2009 . especially PV. a solar share requirement or set-aside appears necessary. In conclusion.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 235: Projecting the Future Market Impacts of Existing State Solar Set Asides (Assuming Full Compliance with Existing RPS Standards) 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 NC NM PA OH MD NJ AZ 2010 2015 2020 2025 Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 190 May 01.

Annual PV Solar Radiation Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory May 01.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 236: U. 2009 191 .S.

Solar Energy Handbook U. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Arizona Date Enacted: 11/14/2006 Effective Date: 6/15/2007 Renewables requirement: 15% by 2025 Set-asides. Land and Radiation: The distributed requirement ensures that most of the residential and small commercial solar systems will be installed on rooftops. tiers. some utilities are already buying wind generated electricity from New Mexico. Challenges: Funding is the biggest challenge as solar projects are the focus. Highest potential/focus: PV and solar water heating. state. 30% of requirement (about 2. half of which must come from residential projects. is currently going through the approval process and has a target operation date in 2011. tribal. but there is plenty to meet RPS in the southwestern 192 May 01.000 MW) must be derived from distributed generation. However. or county land. State RPS Developments Figure 237: New Renewable Capacity Needed by 2025 (Nameplate MW) Californi a I ll inoi s M innesota Texas New Jersey Ari zon a P enn sylvani a Washington Oregon Connecti cut Nevad a 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Source: Barclays Capital research. 2009 . Also.S. minimums: By 2012. which is not promising for wind energy generation. Several 250+ MW solar thermal electric power plants are expected to be built by 2013. Arizona has mostly class 3 and 4 wind resources. One. unlike surrounding states. Much of Arizona is federal. by Abengoa of Spain.

4% Class III) Set-asides. but solar energy will see a large percentage increase in the coming years. California led the country in installed wind capacity until 2006. 2006) Effective Date: 1/1/2003 Renewables requirement: increase renewable retail by at least 1% per year to reach 20% by 2010 Set-asides. but are getting hit with high steel prices. minimums: None Highest potential/focus: The majority of 2010 RPS generation will likely come from geothermal and wind energy. changing statutory requirements by CT legislature. tiers. acceptance of higher prices by the public. some sub-regions such as southwest May 01. There. Challenges: California’s very early RPS deadline coincides with cost escalation. A planned build-out of transmission in the Tehachapi region is expected to give access to 4. Challenges: Inconsistencies and variations in state’s policies. California Date enacted: 2002 (amended 2003. solar radiation is most intense and is the best in the country. Also. Studies indicate that the state has good biomass and vast low-temperature geothermal heat pump potential as well. The California Solar Initiative. 3% Class II. 2009 193 . and avoiding double counting of attributes.Solar Energy Handbook region of the state.2 billion incentives program aiming to add 3. $2. near Yuma.000 MW of new solar electricity by 2017. minimums: Minimum % each year from Class I renewables. Wind continues to be poised for more near-term capacity growth than any other resource. Wind turbine manufacturers are scrambling to ramp up their capacity. Constrained transmission and distribution infrastructure continues to be a problem as well. also known as “Million Solar Roofs. tiers.” is a 10-year. Highest potential/focus: Wind energy in Connecticut has the most potential. creating delays as long as 18 months for delivery of turbines. Connecticut Date enacted: 06/04/2007 Effective Date: 10/01/2007 Renewables requirement: 27% by 2020 (20% Class I resources.500 MW of new wind capacity between 2008 and 2013.

it has useful solar resources throughout most of the state at 4. mainly in the southwestern region. Small wind turbines may have applications in some areas.000MW of new renewable energy to be delivered to bundled customers.500–5. Illinois could make use of certain types of technologies. electricity generation from geothermal is not possible. other utilities: 25% by 2025 194 May 01. Land and Radiation: The best windy land resources in Connecticut are on the ridge crests in the northwestern part of the state. tiers. Land and Radiation: Illinois has good windy land resources in its central and northern regions. For flat-plate collectors. The state also has excellent biomass resource potential as well as some low to moderate temperature resources that can be tapped for direct heat or for geothermal heat pumps. challenges include: significant coal fired generation. and lack of strong solar potential. 2009 . potentially effective in certain applications. but large-scale thermal electricity systems will not be effective. at least 75% of the renewable energy resources used to meet these standards shall come from wind generation. This probably is not the best renewable energy technology for the state. wind regime not the strongest. Illinois Date enacted: 08/28/07 Effective Date: 08/28/07 Renewables requirement: 25% by 2020 Set-asides. For concentrating collectors. it is estimated that the RES will require more than 4. However. For solar concentrating collectors.000 Whr/m2 /day. minimums: 75% wind Highest potential/focus: To the extent that is available. Challenges: With the Illinois energy market the fifth largest in the country. Connecticut has a mid-range solar resource at around 4.000 Whr/m2 /day. Minnesota Date enacted: 02/22/2007 (amended May 2007) Effective Date: 02/22/2007 Renewables requirement: Xcel energy: 30% by 2020.Solar Energy Handbook Connecticut are severely threatened with supply deficiencies and voltage instability problems due to insufficient transmission within the region. For flat-plate collectors. the state has a relatively poor resource. low cost electrical generation. However.

For concentrating collectors.Solar Energy Handbook Set-asides.12% of retail electricity supply must be generated using solar by 2021 (approximately 1500 MW solar) Highest potential/focus: New Jersey has been one of the most aggressive states in the use of a sola r set-aside. Land and Radiation: The highest windy land resource areas in New Jersey are found along the Atlantic Ocean and Delaware Bay coastal areas. 17. in the southern regions. especially in the southwest region of the state. New Jersey Date enacted: 2001. New York Date enacted: 9/24/2004 May 01. but the state also has excellent biomass and vast low-temperature geothermal heat pump potential. tiers. at least 25% must be generated by wind power and the other 5% by other eligible renewables.000–4. minimums: Of the 30% renewables required of Xcel Energy by 2020.500 Whr/m2 /day. Challenges: Because it aims to take advantage of good wind resources. Small wind turbines may have applications in some areas. Land and Radiation: Minnesota has significant windy land resources. especially in the western regions. Highest potential/focus: Wind is the first focus for Minnesota. largely involve siting and transmission difficulties. For concentrating collectors. Although certain technologies may work in specific applications. most concentrating collectors are not effective.000 Whr/m2 /day.12% from solar. and on ridges of western and northwestern New Jersey. the state has a useful amount of solar resource averaging at 4000 to 5000 Whr/m2 /day. For flat-plate collectors. Minnesota has useful resources throughout the state where radiation is around 4. New Jersey also has low to moderate temperature resources that can be tapped for direct heat or for geothermal heat pumps.88% from other Class I renewables. These development ta rgets are the la rgest in the country on a per capita basis and are now driving the high growth in PV installations in the state. 2009 195 . solar resources are only marginal at 3000 to 4000 Whr/m2 /day. For flat-plate collectors. 2. the main challenges for Minnesota. with 3. Minnesota could pursue some types of technologies. minimums: 2.5% by 2021 (2. 2006 Effective Date: 9/01 Renewables requirement: 22.500–4. amendments adopted 2004. like those of other wind states.5% from Class II or additional Class I renewables) Set-asides. tiers. but large-scale thermal electricity systems will not be effective.

Oregon has useful resources in most of the state. at below 3000 Whr/m2 /day. Oregon Date enacted: 6/6/2007 Effective Date: 6/6/2007 Renewables requirement: 25% by 2025 Set-asides. The state also has good low to moderate temperature geothermal potential as well as good hydropower resource as a percentage of the state’s electricity generation. and now it is trying to take the lead again. “behind-the-meter” resources such as solar and small wind projects that produce power for use on site. For concentrating collectors. areas of the coast offer some of the world’s best wave energy and tidal power potential. Oregon’s 196 May 01. and higher REC prices than initially anticipated and budgeted. For flat-plate collectors.to large-scale electric generation facilities that sell their electrical output into the wholesale power market administered by the NYISO.Solar Energy Handbook Effective Date: 9/24/2004 Renewables requirement: 24% by 2013 Set-asides. as well as direct use and heat pump applications. it has relatively poor radiation resources.S. minimums: goal for community-based and small-scale renewables Highest potential/focus: The state offered a ta x credit for solar energy use 30 years ago. with cash incentives for PV and thermal systems. by 2009. tiers. New York has useful resources throughout the state. For flat-plate collectors. In addition. for a total of 0. Challenges: Delays in the on line date of one of the state’s largest new renewable energy facilities. Land and Radiation: Oregon has good windy resources. Small wind turbines may have applications in some areas. For concentrating collectors. Oregon also has excellent biomass resource potential. and the best areas are concentrated on ridge crests throughout the state. Solar World AG announced plans to establish a solar silicon wafer and solar cell production plant in Hillsboro that it expects to become the largest in the U. tiers. 2009 . Land and Radiation: New York has excellent wind resources in some areas of the state.1542% of customer-sited generation. as well as hightemperature geothermal resources that are suitable for electricity generation.” consists of medium. Green collar jobs are getting a boost from four PV component-manufa cturers’ moves into the sta te. or “Main Tier. The second or “Customer-Sited Tier” consists of smaller. with the best resources falling in the eastern region of the state. Highest potential/focus: The first. and the passage of seven clean-energy bills in 2007. minimums: 2% of total incremental RPS requirement is set-aside for Customer-Sited Tier.

solar energy and biomass. and other environmentally controversial sources such as waste coal and municipal trash. Texas Date enacted: 6/18/1999 Effective Date: 9/1/1999 (amendments effective 9/1/2007) Renewables requirement: 5880 MW by 2015 Set-asides. minimums: target of at least 500 MW from renewables other than wind Highest potential/focus: Wind power development in Texas has more than quadrupled since the RPS was established. with the best areas concentrated on ridge crests in the southwestern region. low-impact hydro. but most concentrating collectors are not effective. several state environmental groups characterized the proposal as “the dirtiest RPS” in the nation and urged opposition.Solar Energy Handbook resource varies significantly across the state. There are useful resources across the state for flatplate collectors but relatively poor resources for concentrating solar.5% for June 1. most concentrating collectors would not be effective. requiring that Texas meet 500 MW with non-wind generation. In the southeast corner of the state. tiers. Along the coastline. This provision indirectly promotes solar May 01. the resources are useful for most technologies at around 4000 Whr/m2 /day. certain technologies might be applicable. Senate Bill 20 was implemented in an effort to diversify the state’s renewable generation portfolio. Because the sta te’s energy efficiency plan included coal mine methane. Challenges: Defining the boundaries from which renewable energy can be counted toward the PA standard has been a major challenge. though. While it will continue to be the bulk of renewable energy expansion under the state’s RPS. tiers. 2020 and thereafter Highest potential/focus: Tier I resources include wind. minimums: Solar PV set-aside of 0. In the eastern region. Small wind turbines may have applications in some areas. 2009 197 . Pennsylvania Date enacted: 11/30/2004 Effective Date: 2/28/2005 Renewables requirement: 18% by 2020 (8% Tier I and 10% Tier II) Set-asides. Land and Radiation: Pennsylvania has windy land resources consistent with utilityscale production. southwest of Altoona and southeast of Pittsburgh.

especially in peak wind periods. tiers. state. The state also provides very good solar resources for flat-plate collectors. Land and Radiation: Washington has wind resources consistent with utility-scale production. particularly in the Big Bend region. For concentrating collectors. SB 5101 is especially responsible for growing solar PV demand. For flat-plate collectors. For concentrating collectors. The western region of the state could pursue some of the technologies. Washington’s resource varies across the state. as well as high-temperature resources that are suitable for both electricity generation and direct use and heat pump applications. but the state does not have enough of a resource (averaging 2000 to 3500 Whr/m2 /day) for largescale thermal electricity systems.S. Challenges: The unexpected and rapid development of wind energy in remote sections of Western Texas has placed significant demands on the modest transmission systems that deliver electricity to areas of high demand. the first such application of this approach in a U. but there is growing interest in solar. and provides landowners with new from the use of crops and animal waste to produce energy.Solar Energy Handbook power and biomass. and concentrating collectors along the Gulf Coast would be much less effective. 2009 . But they vary significantly across the state. Land and Radiation: There is an abundance of exceptional wind resources in Texas. Washington Date enacted: 11/7/2006 Renewables requirement: 15% by 2020 Set-asides. Nevada Date enacted: 1997 Effective Date: 2002 Renewables requirement: 20% by 2015 198 May 01. Small wind turbines may have applications in some areas. The largest contiguous areas of excellent resource are located in the central part of the state. there are again very good resources in some areas. While it would represent a paradigm shift for solar legislation domestically. Washington also has excellent biomass resource potential. there is again a widely varied resource. this has long been effective in Germany. radiation averages above 6500 Whr/m2 /day. In the southwestern region. minimums: None Highest potential/focus: So far the focus as been on wind. but is more or less average. The law establishes a renewable energy “feed-in” production incentive.

May 01. The solar radiation profile is good in southern Nevada. Nevada is the seventh largest sta te in terms of land area. concentrating solar plants. Several CSP plants are in a planning phase in that area including Tonopah. Sierra Pacific and Nevada Power.Solar Energy Handbook Set-asides. It is the driest state in the nation. so sufficient water is always a concern (issue in CSP). except for in Eastern Nevada. minimums: 5% of the energy portfolio must be solar. There is also the need for direct transmission connection between North and South Nevada. tiers. over 80% of the state is Federal land. Their credit has delayed potential renewable energy investors who would need to enter into longterm contracts with the utilities in order to meet RPS requirements. however. PV credit multipliers. Land and Radiation: Much of the renewable energy resource base is located in isolated areas. and PV. Challenges: A big challenge in implementation has been the financial woes of the state's two primary electricity suppliers. Highest potential/focus: Geothermal. 2009 199 . Access to wind resources is limited. NV.

2009 .Solar Energy Handbook 200 May 01.

Solar Energy Handbook Chapter 9: Solar Energy Project Development Process Overview May 01. 2009 201 .

or produce it independently. and Environmental Quality. The Design and Engineering team needs to connect the plant to the power grid and provide blueprints. 202 May 01. type (PV or CSP). Permitting for a solar project depends on location. and auditing Source: Barclays Capital research Solar Energy Project Process Development Overview The first step in the Solar Energy Project Development process is to construct the plant and decide whether to buy the energy through a PPA. reporting. eligibility requirements are needed for RPS/Feed-in Tariff/Incentives and to construct the solar power plant.g. or investment.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 238: Solar Energy Project Development Process Overview Life of Plant (e. County. 20 years) 4-24 weeks 17-25 weeks 12-108 weeks 3-5 weeks 3-4 weeks Contractor Selection Project Development Authoriz ation Pre -Construction Construction & Testing Operations & Maintenance Design Internal Speci fications Review Bids Compile Shortlist Sign Binding Letter of Intent Design Blueprints and floor plans Obtain Power Grid Connection Sign Financing Contract with bank Sign Firm Contract Municipal. Finally. Energy Commission. The next step is to apply for financing through loans. 2009 . and BLM Permitting Get PPA approval from state utilities commission Purchase or lease land Clear and level ground site Receive equipment and supplies Installation Perform commissioning to gauge initial perform ance O&M agreement includes terms such as employees. This is done early on in the process because: Permitting is a bottleneck and dependent on blueprints and Purchasing/leasing land is dependent upon power grid connection.

S. In order to choose a supplier. Type of land planned to build upon (public or private). Factors impacting timeline of project development include: Size of project. and Type of financing (debt. Once the utility chooses the supplier they must negotiate a contract. Finally. 2009 203 . the project must secure the site for construction and produce the plant. which includes a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) and form a binding letter of intent to continue the subsequent steps in the process. Four Solar Energy Project Models Model 1: Utility Buys Power to Fill RPS (U. Next the supplier and utility must plan grid connection and construction while obtaining permitting and financing. equity). the utility must issue solicitations for the project. review bids and choose based on reliability standards and credit worthiness. May 01.Solar Energy Handbook A typical sola r energy project takes anywhere from nine months to three years to complete construction. Next the project must secure financing and sign the PPA contract and submit for the approval of the Public Utility Commission.) Description: Utility buys power from a supplier to fill a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).

Solar Energy Handbook Figure 239: Model 1: Utility Buys Power to Fill RPS Source: Barclays Capital research 204 May 01. 2009 .

review bids. the contract negotiation and site acquisition overlap with the permitting process in order to prevent any further delay already caused by the permitting process. they must issue solicitations. the developer can construct and install the plant.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 240: Gantt Chart. Model 1 Source: Barclays Capital Research Model 2: Utility Builds and Owns Plant Description: Utility builds solar energy plant and owns it as a subsidiary. Once the PPA contract is agreed upon. In order for the utility to secure a developer. it is still required for permitting. which is still a bottleneck for this process. While the design and engineering is not required for financing. 2009 205 . and then begin negotiations with a developer. May 01. In this model. the parent company and the subsidiary sign an LLC operating agreement and an O&M agreement that defines the relationship among owners. Once the PPA is approved by the public utilities commission.

Solar Energy Handbook Figure 241: Model 2: Utility Builds and Owns Plant Source: Barclays Capital research 206 May 01. 2009 .

2009 207 . Since an investor finances the project for the financial incentives.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 242: Gantt Chart: Model 2 Source: Barclays Capital Research Model 3: Tax Advantage Project (U.S. The Solar Energy Service Provider goes through the applications and only chooses those that would be good investments. Once these applications are approved they sign a binding letter of intent with the customer and send the PPA to be approved by the utilities commission. only the customer pays for the electricity and does not pay for the fixed assets. This process can be initiated by the investor. or the solar energy service provider’s sales team. customer. Once the PPA has been approved. The process time for this model is less as the land rights do not need to be secured like they do in the previous two models.) Description: Solar energy services provider installs plant on customer’s roof. The financial incentives of this project are that the solar energy service provider owns the asset and can use accelerated deprecation while receiving tax credits. the system is prepared and installed. May 01.

2009 .Solar Energy Handbook Figure 243: Model 3: Tax Advantage Project Source: Barclays Capital research 208 May 01.

Investors approach the systems integrator who conducts permitting. During the site acquisition. 2009 209 . land and construction preparation and construction and after-site services. Once the contract is complete the systems integrator hires the subcontractors for the land preparation and construction. which includes connecting to the power grid. May 01.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 244: Gantt Chart: Model 3 Source: Barclays Capital Research Model 4: Solar Energy Project Process Development in Europe Description: Solar Project in Europe is initiated by an investor who works with a systems integrator to build the plant. and completing financing. and design and engineering. obtaining permits. while subcontracting project development. the systems integrator find a project developer and begins the design and engineering process. site acquisition.

2009 .Solar Energy Handbook Figure 245: Model 4: General Solar Energy Project Process – Germany Source: Barclays Capital research 210 May 01.

Solar Energy Handbook Figure 246: Model 4: General Solar Energy Project Process – Spain Source: Barclays Capital research May 01. 2009 211 .

2009 .Solar Energy Handbook Figure 247: Model 4: General Solar Energy Project Process – Italy Source: Barclays Capital research 212 May 01.

2009 213 .Solar Energy Handbook Figure 248: Model 4: General Solar Energy Project Process – Greece Source: Barclays Capital research May 01.

Solar Energy Handbook Figure 249: Europe Comparative Gantt Chart: Model 4 Best Case Months Co ntra ct Nego tiation 1 1 1 1 Develo per Acquisition 1 1 1 1 Site Acquisition 1 1 1 1 Design & Engineering 1 2 2 2 Permit ting 3 5 5 9 Financing 3 6 7 9 Co ntra ct Completion 1 1 1 1 Land Preparation 1 1 1 1 Co nstruct io n Prepa ration 1 1 1 1 Co nstruct io n 1 1 1 1 Aft er Site Services 1 1 1 1 Italy Greec e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Leg end: Germany Spain Source: Barclays Capital research 214 May 01. 2009 .

Solar Energy Handbook Chapter 10: Solar Energy Basics May 01. 2009 215 .

selenium cells were used in light-sensitive photography devices. and Gerald Pearson. This fueled the exploration of clean technology forms such as solar.5% of the mainland is sufficient to satisfy all U.S. The majority of the world’s CSP capacity is concentrated in the nine CSP power plants constructed in the Mojave Desert. and geothermal. discovered in 1877 by Charles Fritts. In other words. wind. the higher operating cost compared with other renewable energy sources (10% of investment cost instead of less than 1% for sola r PV) and the la ck of government incentive in promoting CSP.Solar Energy Handbook Solar Energy What Is Solar Energy? Solar energy is described as the sun’s rays that reach the earth and can then be converted into either thermal (heat) or electricity. What Is Photovoltaic Solar Energy? Photo = light and voltaic = electricity. during 1984–1990. 2009 . According to the United States Department of Energy. designed by AT&T Bell scientists Calvin Fuller. Types of Solar Technology Although both solar PV and solar thermal technologies are capable of producing electricity on a large scale. and the world’s CSP capacity has increased at a very gradual pace since then. California. electricity needs. Daryl Chapin. was constructed from the semiconductor selenium coated with a nearly transparent layer of gold. and Soviet space programs adopted this alternative energy source. which are essentially similar to coal and other fossil fuel power plants. But at $300 per watt. By the 1930s. They demonstrated a more refined silicon solar cell capable of 6% conversion efficiency. History of the Solar Cell The first true solar cell. and 2) solar thermal plants (also known as concentrated solar power or CSP). dependence on imported oil. Solar PV costs 216 May 01.000 square meters per 30MW plant3). Solar energy can be converted into electricity in two ways: 1) photovoltaic cells. Fritts’ cells were highly inefficient. Russell Ohl’s breakthrough of the first silicon solar cell in 1941 was followed by the first c-Si solar panels in 1954. Solar energy converted into heat can be used to: heat water for use in homes and buildings and heat spaces. the development of solar PV has been much faster than CSP over the past decade. and satellites in both U. The “Space Race” of the 1950s and 1960s presented an opportunity for solar development. sunlight falling on less than 0. photovoltaic technology which is essentially a scientific term used to describe solar energy referring to generation of electricity from light. The different fate of these two solar technologies can be attributed to the relatively large space requirement for the construction of a “solar farm” under CSP (188. the technology was considered far too expensive for widespread use. however they use sunlight instead of coal or natural gas to generate electricity. The energy crisis and oil embargos of the 1970s led to greater national consciousness for reducing U.S. converting less than 1% of absorbed light into electrical energy—but it was a start.S.

fourth-generation PV involves the mixture of polymers with nano particles to make mutispectrum-layered cells. There is May 01. This caused renewable energy industries in the United States to lose some degree of allure. These cost savings opened the door to many novel solar applications. creating energy along the way. they do not rely on the traditional p-n junction to separate photogenerated charge carriers. 2009 217 . but the disadvantage of reduced efficiency relative to wafer-based silicon. while phosphorous is used for n-type layers. including: railroads. It is important to compare the conversion efficiencies of different solar technologies. By the 1990s. p-type silicon contain “holes”. and electrons are shaken loose from their atoms. photoelectrochemical. remote homes. In conventional polysilicon solar cell. The conversion of solar to electric energy is known as the photovoltaic effect. The first consists of silicon wafer-based solar cells. Separation of the charge carriers to a conductive contact transmits the electricity. amorphous silicon and Cadmium telluride (CdTe) are the most advanced technology. and more. In order to create usable electricity current. The second generation is based on thin-film technologies. the p-type and n-type layers are made by adding a small amount of impurities to the silicon. subsidies. However. while n-type silicon contains extra “electrons”. such as silicon. the dominant technology in commercial electricity production. electrons will flow through the path to their original side (the P side) to unite with holes that the electric field sent there. Through doping the silicon with boron and phosphorus. Technologies under development in thirdgeneration PV include nanocrystal (quantum dot). the electrons gain energy and start moving from p-type layer to the n-type layer. Copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) is a relatively new semiconductor material being tested. In the late 1980s. and see that the most efficient developments are not usually the most economical. The absorbed light causes electrons in the material to increase in energy. The solar cell industry has four generations of development. How Solar Cells Generate Electricity The solar cell generates electric energy from light when solar radiation photons are absorbed by a semiconducting material. rapid PV market growth was taking place overseas in countries such as Germany and Japan. and polymer solar cells. but fossil fuel costs had dropped to record low levels as well. where government incentives remained robust. lighthouses. and the field of research around solar cells is photovolatics. light is first absorbed by the solar cell. Finally. However. Here. If we provide an external current path. offshore oil rigs. solar energy costs had fallen as predicted. These two different layers are called p-type and n-type layer. Thin-film has the advantages of lower cost per watt and flexible installation. electrons remain at this higher energy level for only a short time before returning to their original lower energy position. and research poured in. Boron is usually used for p-type layer.Solar Energy Handbook began to decline as investments. Fundamentally. at the same time making them free to move around. When sunlight hits a solar cell. silicon solar cells had a 20% conversion rate and concentrator cells had a 38% conversion rate. the individual cell is designed with a positive and a negative layer to create an electric field. During the PV process.

2009 . distributed generation avoids the complexity of building new lines and can be configured to meet peak electricity needs. commercially available c-Si cells have efficiencies around 15%. a cell with an efficiency of 17% has a Wp of 170 watt per m2 under standard conditions. but also the level of sunlight and the surface area of solar cell.Solar Energy Handbook generally a range of 6% efficiency for amorphous silicon cells to 40% efficiency for multijunction research lab cells. For comparison purposes. 218 May 01. Higher cell efficiency will result in a higher Wp. the materials used for cell manufacturing is one of the key determinants of cell efficiency level. the Wp is estimated at 2. The higher the efficiency. we consider an important parameter called cell efficiency.000MW plants that use the underlying transmission infrastructure for delivery to end-users. expressed in watt peak (Wp). cell output is usually measured under standard test conditions (STC). defined as the production of energy close to the point of use. Somewhere in the middle. Since different materials absorbs light with different energy levels. Figure 250: How Electricity Is Produced in a Solar Cell (-) anti-reflection coating front contac t emitter External load electron hole pair bas e rear contact (+) Source: Miami University of Ohio. Central generation refers to large 500–2. Another important concept for the solar industry is distributed generation potential. it is necessary to compare the power output under the same standard conditions. The rated power. Barclays Capital research Solar Cell Efficiency and the Concept of Watt Peak In order to judge whether a solar cell is good or bad. all units denominated in watt (W) refer to watt peak (Wp). cell efficiency measures how much energy from sunlight (Pin) can be converted into electricity (Pm ) by a solar cell. For example. which is measured in terms of the following equation: η = Pm Pin In simpler terms.0147 m2). The amount of electricity that can be generated not only depends on the cell efficiency. as it is not a perfect square (the surface area is only 0.66W. is a measure of the amount of energy that a solar panel can produce under optimal conditions. In contrast. In order to make a meaningful comparison between solar cells. the Wp may be even lower. In this report. For a standard 5-inch solar cell (125mm x 125mm). the more electricity can be generated. For mono-crystalline solar cell.

Considering the growth pace of renewable energy production in the nation. lower purity feedstock. which may slacken as subsidies in early-adopting countries such as Germany and Spain ramp down. solar demand has entirely outpaced supply. a lack of standardization in netmetering regulations. Again. alongside technological advancements. It is difficult to produce highly robust. as well as the performance of cheaper. Moving ahead. this presents a major market barrier to faster industry expansion. it is critical for these market barriers to be addressed. recovering credits and rebates have been highly difficult and inconsistent for renewable energy pioneers. the biggest technical challenge has been the thickness of solar cells leading to high material costs. Although national sentiment is generally receptive to solar development within the United States. Interconnection – Because we are still very early into the solar era. however. driving spot prices as high as $450 per kilogram. The year 2009. Historically. the DOE launched the Renewable Systems Interconnection (RSI) study. Net Metering – Similar to transmission complexities. a significant barrier to thin-film technology has been the low degree of module efficiency. One key finding of this study is that integration issues are likely to emerge much sooner than many experts believe—within the next five to 10 years for some regions of the country.5–24GW by 2015. 2009 219 . new wafer lift-off techniques to minimize kerf losses. and other policies affecting solar. The variable nature of most renewable energy forms presents new transmission needs in the nation’s overall distribution network. Net metering is intended to be made available for any consumer interconnecting their generator to the grid. This has imposed a bottleneck across the PV industry. Solar experts are exploring ways to enhance the use efficiency of silicon raw material.S. policies have favored the entrenched conventional utilities. many states and utilities currently have interconnection standards that inhibit PV adoption. and improving light trapping to ensure optimal absorption by solar cells. a hurdle for the industrial development of renewable resources such as solar and wind energy. A system owner receives retail credit for at least a portion of the electricity they generates. yet May 01.Solar Energy Handbook Market Barriers Implications of Demand versus Supply – Over the last few years. has inhibited the escalation of U. Government support for solar will continue to be a critical driver of demand. Annual installations of grid-tied PV could reach a cumulative installed base of 7. Technical Challenges For crystalline silicon. But new markets like China and India may shift existing suppliers to new geographies. However. installations. Solar is expected to contribute to instability of the electricity grid. In spring 2007. grid connection standards are not yet sufficiently streamlined. will be a critical tipping point when supply continues to ease and exceed demand. Manufacturers currently are seeking ways to transition from prototype scale construction to commercially viable deployment. Efforts to improve silicon efficiency include: reducing head and tail losses when pulling ingots.

there were 74 price increases compared with29 last month. Concentrating PV is not a new phenomenon. historically fallen by around 20% for each doubling of installed capacity.200–US$1. Prices will waver around this point depending on the order size. and to develop easily integrated products that allow for more frequent replacement cycles. For example. EPIA believes solar PV will become cost-competitive to peak load residential retail electricity prices and could be able to replace the peak load power usage by residential users in low sunshine regions (900 effective operating hours).Solar Energy Handbook transparent and moisture-proof material. the total operating cost of a solar PV on a per kWh basis can be two to eight times more expensive. which aims to bring the PV electricity costs down from ¥50 per kWh currently to ¥23 by 2010. 220 May 01. many manufacturers have been discouraged by the complications and costs associated with cell integration.S. The costs of solar PV have. Solar Energy’s cost-cutting potential remains the most promising. Cost of Solar Electricity Solar PV is currently the most expensive form of energy.000–US$6. Efforts have been made to use rigid glass encapsulated modules on the outset. in order to concentrate on cell performance. but historically. However.400 per kW. The European Photovoltaic Association (EPIA) also projects a similar 15%–18% cost-reduction factor. The U. For high-power band modules under 70 watts. Compared to conventional coalfired electricity. However. Technical challenges include: dissipating heat from cells. By then. the investment cost per kW for solar PV is around US$6. ¥14 by 2020.a. Note that the solar module typically makes up 40%–50% of an entire solar system’s total installed cost. According to the IEA Renewable Energy Outlook 2003. and expects PV module costs to come down from the current EUR4–EUR5 per W to around EUR1 per W by 2020. although it varies depending on the nature of the application. and 40 price decreases compared with 31 last month. with projected ASPs to fall by 15% for every doubling of installed capacity. There is little doubt that the solar industry will continue to see lower prices in the long term. or by about 5% p.445 online retail prices. Even compared with other renewable energy sources such as wind power. both solar PV and wind have minimal generation costs as no fuel is required. They were rarely able to reach the volume production necessary for these kinds of projects to be profitable. and ¥7 by 2030 through various next-generation production technology. there has been a resurrection of interest in the CPV approach as multi-junction cell efficiency and power density levels reach new records. prices have declined from $27/Wp to $4/Wp since the early 1980s. and guaranteeing tracking precision. A similar target and strategy was also introduced by the New Energy Development Organization (NEDO) in Japan. solar energy is still much more expensive. According to a June 2008 survey of 1. index was up one cent at $4.500 while wind power only costs about US$1.82 per watt. 2009 . however. sealing modules from moisture. Shortterm periods of price strength are indicative of solid interest in new installations.

a trend that is expected to continue.0 8 $ 0. These measures. DOE Publication.3 5 O &M $ 0.2 5 $ 0.0 0 20 06 Ben chmar k 2 01 0 20 15 Source: U.0 5 $ 0. Barcla ys Capital research Figure 252: Solar Technology Price Trends 40 Cost (cents/kWh) 30 Ins talled trough plants Actual PV 20 Enhanced trough technology Projected PV Advanced solar thermal largescale deployment 10 Actual solar water heating Projected solar water heating 1998 2002 2006 2010 0 19 90 1994 Source: U. May 01.S. in response to rising oil prices.S. Figure 251 takes a look at solar electricity generation costs compared with other energy sources available at present.3 0 $ 0. Improvements in cost. O&M. and performance efficiency and reliability are expected to have the largest direct impact on the levelized cost of energy. two to five times the average residential electricity tariff. the cost of solar electricity was about $2. The amount of available sunlight in that region over the period of one year must be calculated.1 5 $ 0. 2009 221 .2 0 Commerci al System Targets $ 0. These costs have declined more than 90% in the last two decades due to technological progress. Costs are expressed in cents/kWh. Solar electricity prices at present are around 30 cents/kWh. Knowing the solar installation’s actual location is necessary to translate kWp to kWh.00 per kWh.0 0 200 6 Be nch mark 20 10 201 5 O the r Co sts In sta llatio n Bo S In ver ter Mod ules $ 0.1 0 $ 0. DOE Publication.0 4 $ 0.2 0 $ 0. Figure 251: Benchmark Data for 2010 and 2015 Projections Residenti al System T argets $ 0. Barcla ys Capital research When the solar phenomenon was first born in the 1970s.Solar Energy Handbook The price per delivered kilowatt-hour expresses economic costs of solar electric systems when taking solar conditions into consideration.1 6 O &M O the r C osts I nsta llatio n Bo S I nve rte r Mod ule s $ 0.1 2 $ 0.

7M Advanced Thin Films-Single Junction Cells. 4%. 21%. $ 55 M Te chnolo gy Pathway Partnershi ps. $0.9M Multiple Exciton G eneration. In the early 1970s.S.7 M Or ganic. Several technology categories are discussed further. Design enhancements and installation simplification are also crucial. $2 1.Efficiency Multi-Junction. These targets require a two. 4%. $1. efficiency loss occurs over a period of time due to the "Staebler-Wronksi" effect and in order to solve this problem a-Si cells usually have a three-layer structure. 8%. only a 1-micron thick layer needs to be deposited as compared to about 200-micron thick layers in the case of crystalline silicon.4 M Hybr id Organic/Inor ganic . In addition. The 222 May 01.9M PV In cu bator. well below the 14%–16% levels of crystalline silicon. 4%. $4. 11%.9M Advanced Thin Films-T andem Cells. $0. $18 0 M Next Gene ra ti on. $2. bringing reduced costs and greater efficiencies. $2. $2. Barclays Capital research Thin-Film – Amorphous Silicon (a-Si): Layers of amorphous silicon are deposited as light-absorbing materials on rigid or flexible substrates instead of traditional crystalline silicon layers. 9%. 8%. The main advantage of this technology is that amorphous silicon absorbs solar radiation 40 times more efficiently than traditional crystalline silicon and consequently. with full commercialization in 2020–2030. generation capacity. 70% . Next-Generation Technology The Solar Energy Technologies Program in the United States has announced the selection of 25 exploratory research projects dubbed “Next-Generation Photovoltaic Devices and Processes. and move the industry closer to its 2015 goals of cost parity and five to 10GW of U.S.7 Million) Inter mediate Bands. DOE.Solar Energy Handbook if executed successfully.8M Other. 2009 .9M High.8M Sensitized Cells. 21% . $0. Figure 253: Next-Generation Fund Allocation New R&D Investm ents in Companies and Univers ities Under SAI Nex t Generation ($21. $1. 4%. $2. these pipeline projects could drastically change current solar market paradigms and standards. 11%.” If successful. realized through lower module manufacturing costs and long inverter lifetime. 13%. will accelerate the growth of PV systems production. The main disadvantage with this technology is that module efficiencies are typically between 6% and 8%.6M Plasmonics. Prototype cells and processes are expected to surface by 2015. scientists found a use for a-Si in PV technology by controlling the conditions under which it is deposited and carefully modifying its composition. $0.to threefold improvement in cost per kWh for modules/inverters.5M Advanced Concentrator Cells.4M Source: U. 12%.

Schott Solar. known as the Staebler-Wronski effect. Instability is arguably the biggest obstacle.1 eV in c-Si to 1. The mechanism of degradation. glass.Solar Energy Handbook material has long been popular in small consumer devices with low power requirements. United Solar Systems. ersol Thin-Film. Barclays Capital research Thin-Film – Cadmium Telluride (CdTe): Solar modules use cadmium telluride as the absorption layer. Although output gradually stabilizes. losses of 20% can occur before this happens. Sharp. in which an intrinsic layer (i-layer) is sandwiched between a p-layer and an n-layer. Now. and at present. a better understanding of certain unique a-Si characteristics makes it appealing for solar electric systems.7 eV in amorphous silicon. Advantages of using this technology are that CdTe has absorption properties that are matched to the solar spectrum and uses 1% of the semiconductor material used by traditional crystalline silicon solar modules. and better module packaging to make the material less susceptible to glass breakage or moisture ingress in outdoor environments. causes conversion efficiency to decrease considerably during initial exposure to sunlight. 2009 223 . Figure 254: Amorphous Silicon Cell Structure Flexible Stairless Substrate Back Reflector Film Layer Red Cell Green Cell Blue Cell Transparent Conductive Film Thickness of complete multi-j unction cell <µm A typical amorphous cell employs a p-i-n design. as can capital equipment reduction. it is the leading thin-film PV material. Employing a-Si thin-film does present some challenges. May 01. CdTe technology has a relatively high-energy performance in low light and high-temperature environments compared to traditional crystalline silicon technologies. It can also be produced at lower temperatures and deposited on inexpensive substrates such as plastic. Disadvantages include lower module efficiencies and use of toxic material (cadmium). Bandgaps increase from 1. Multi-junction designs can help to lessen this effect. Source: EERE. a faster rate of material deposition. and metal. and a growing number of others. Current layers in the amorphous silicon market include Energy Conversion Devices. such as wristwatches and calculators. In addition.

solar wafers are traditionally cut from a large ingot using wire saws. this technology offers the promise of having a simple structure and low manufacturing costs. reducing the material loss by almost 50%. Figure 256: String Ribbon Technology Molten Silicon Growing Ribbon Solid-Melt Interface Silicon Feed Crucible String Source: Altenergy S tore. however. except that the wafer manufacturing process is different. Companies have been able to achieve lab efficiency rates as high as 10%. the cells decompose gradually under sunlight and as such have a much shorter life than conventional cells.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 255: CdTe Solar Cell Incident light Glass superstrate Transparent conducting oxide Current out CdS (~100nm) Cd-Te (~10 µm) Gold Contact Source: Durham Physics. Barclays Capital research Ribbon Technology – Solar cell manufacturing using ribbon technology is highly similar to that of conventional crystalline silicon cell technology. In this technology. Barclays Capital research Dye-Sensitized Cell – Although not in commercial production yet. In ribbon technology. 2009 . 224 May 01. a two-dimensional polysilicon sheet or ingot is formed which can be cut into a silicon wafer by laser. a photo-sensitive dye is mixed with titanium dioxide and deposited on an iodide substrate using nanotechnology. In conventional crystalline solar cell manufacturing.

more efficient in low-light/low-angle applications. Thin-Film – Micro-Crystalline Silicon: The technology is similar to the tandem cell technology. Barclays Capital research Thin-Film – Copper Indium Di-Selenide (CIGS): CIGS is the light-absorbing material of this thin-film technology. although only about 9%–13% efficiencies in commercial scale production. May 01. Figure 258: CIGS Solar Cell Structure Source: Image provided courtesy of BP Solar Compound Semiconductor (Crystalline Thin-Film Tandem Cell) – In this case. This technology can achieve lab efficiencies of 19. 2009 225 . the efficiency reduces to about 14%.5%. except that multi-crystalline silicon layer is completely replaced by microcrystalline silicon alloy. a thin film of amorphous silicon is deposited over multi-crystalline silicon to form the p-n junction. This process lowers material costs by as much as 99%. however.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 257: Structure of a Dye-Sensitized Cell e Dye e e e count er el ectrode e TiO2 electrically conductive glass electrode e e Li ght e e e Source: Postech University. The main advantages of this technology are lower manufacturing costs. The main disadvantages are that the world's supply of indium is limited and in general the production process of such a multilayer structure is extremely complex. Amorphous silicon is generally more efficient in absorbing visible light while multi-crystalline silicon is better absorbing the infra-red spectrum and the combination structure produces cells with efficiency levels as high as 21%.

compared to more than 25 years for conventional cells). the cells are capable of absorbing sunlight from different directions. The main disadvantages of this technology are lower efficiency levels (11%–15%) and shorter life time (usually about three years. Barclays Capita l research 226 May 01.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 259: μ-Si/a-Si Solar Cell Structure Sunlight a-Si Top cell MicrocrystallineSi bottom cell Glass TCO A-Si p-layer A-Si i-layer A-Si n-layer Microcystalline-Si p-layer Microcrystalline-Si i-layer Microcrystalline-Si n-layer ZnO Ag Source: : Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. thereby increasing the amount of electricity generated. The main advantages of this technology are lower costs and material properties such as bendability and lightweight. In addition. Figure 260: Spherical Silicon Solar Cell Production Silicon Feedstock Front Foil Refine Diffuse Etch Front Band Shunt Pass ivation Back Bond Back Foil Aluminum Foil Perforation Source: Spheral Solar Power. 2009 . Barclays Capital research Spherical Silicon Cell – Solar cells formed through this technology use combination of aluminum foil and spherical silicon.

Multiple Exciton Generation — When solar PV cells absorb photons from sunlight. and then mechanically stacked. achieve greater conversion efficiency through their stacked bandgap structure. allowing more of it to enter the absorber. not absorbed by the top cell are transmitted through the remaining transparent cell layers. These waves focus light into a PV cell that would not otherwise be absorbed. A major challenge for today’s multi-junction research lies in finding less expensive ways of making these structures. New legislation concerning renewable portfolio standards has been passed or is pending in the majority of U. Multi-Junction Cells — Multi-junction cells. generated when light hits the surface of a metal under specific conditions. however. organic materials such as carbon are used in the formation of solar cells. According to the DOE’s Renewable Systems Interconnection report of 2007. In the first approach. one complete solar cell is made. The project has a target efficiency of 25%. states. or wires can improve bulk semiconductor cell efficiencies. Multiple exciton generation. Other materials being explored include amorphous silicon and copper indium diselenide.4%. semiconductor nanocrystals such as spherical quantum dots. Plasmonics.7% to 44. results in the formation of multiple excitons from the absorption of a single photon by the photovoltaic cell. Plasmonics – Plasmons are density waves of electrons. CIT is also addressing plasmonics in earthabundant semiconductors through top cell and Si bottom cell integration. Tandem Cells – Tandem cells can be made two different ways: the mechanical stack and monolithic methods. three May 01. which allows for more of the solar spectrum to be captured. Expanding Photovoltaic Markets A more receptive U. two individual cells are independently made. 2009 227 . researchers are combining plasmonics and III-V quantum well and nanowire solar cells for highefficiency PV.S. However. At University of California – San Diego. also called cascade or tandem cells. enhancing PV cell performance. Using MEG.Solar Energy Handbook Organic Photovoltaic – As the name implies. this technology is still in the early-development stage. solar market is manifesting. from 33. from solar radiation. as supportive policy developments at both the federal and state level boost demand. a new photonics branch of research. With the monolithic approach. The main advantages of this technology are lower costs. There has been a focus on gallium arsenide for component cells because of its 35% efficiency level under concentrated sunlight—high for PV devices. harvesting the energy is often difficult due to the short lifetimes of multiexcitons. some energy is converted to electrons but much of it is lost as heat. uses nanostructured materials to control light. a way to reduce this wasteful heat.S. Individual single-junction cells are stacked in such a way that high-energy photons. with the second cell layers grown or deposited directly on top of it. This lends the advantage of higher sunlight-to-electricity conversion efficiency for single-junction solar cells. Residential and commercial installations tied to existing grid systems should continue to see rapid growth. one with a high bandgap and one with a lower bandgap. rods.

lifting net metering caps. and partial or full extension of the federal investment tax credit. 2009 . installations to 24GW by 2015.S. The maps seen in Figure 261 and Figure 262 illustrate potential growth patterns for PV systems in various regions of the nation. Dark red areas pinpoint where solar has already or will achieve grid parity with conventional electricity sources.S. and attractive subsidies. The combination of all three policies is expected to increase overall U. reflecting existing incentives. Department of Energy 228 May 01. Figure 261: PV and Electricity Price Difference for Residential Sector (2007) Source: This map was generated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for the U.Solar Energy Handbook key policies that are expected to have the best positive impact on solar demand in the United States include: improved interconnection standards. The map in Figure 261 shows PV and electricity price differences for the residential sector as they stood in 2007. record electricity prices. Photovoltaic markets are taking off in several states thanks to cost reductions.

this 13% overall increase is a moderate forecast.5% rate annually. May 01. About 620 more utilities see a price difference of less than 5 cents per kWh. 1. Consequently. electricity service territories were evaluated.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 262: Solar Electricity Grid-Parity Scenarios in 2015 Due to Annual Electricity Price Escalation of 1. PV technology reaches parity in the Southwest states. due to abundant solar resources coupled with high energy prices there.5% Source: This map was generated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for the U. Department of Energy The map in Figure 262 shows 2015 PV and electricity price differences for residential systems under the assumption that the real price of electricity will grow at a 1. These utilities produce 95% of all residential electricity sales in the country. In addition.S.000 of the largest U. 85% of residential sales should occur in locations where the cost of PV electricity is less than 5 cents per kWh higher than the prevailing rate.S. Under this scenario. solar electricity will actually be cheaper than conventional electricity. 2009 229 . For about 250 utilities. Given current market trends.

If SAI is able to reach its full potential by 2015. In both future scenarios. The price difference is less than 5 cents per kWh for an impressive 950 utilities. it should expand through much of the country in a truly self-sustaining manner. Incentives are not present in either scenario. universities. is working to accelerate widespread commercialization of solar energy technologies by 2015. through government partnerships with industry. installation simplifications. Midwestern. The goal is to make photovoltaic electricity cost-competitive with conventional grid electricity.. and Southeastern states have achieved grid parity. national laboratories.5% Source: This map was generated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for the U. PV electricity is cheaper than retail electricity for about 450 utilities. volume productions. initiated under former President Bush. In this case. the extent of parity across the United States also depends on whether engineering break-throughs. Department of Energy The map in Figure 263 reflects a more aggressive price escalation rate of 2.S. etc. Now many of the Central. and other public entities. state municipalities. reflecting 90% of residential demand.5% annually. exceed current expectations. So while PV is not expected to be cost-competitive in every single utility territory.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 263: Solar Electricity Grid-Parity Scenarios in 2015 Due to Annual Electricity Price Escalation of 2. 2009 . PV 230 May 01. Solar America Initiative The Solar America Initiative (SAI).

displace 7 million metric tons of CO 2 emissions annually. May 01. 2009 231 . The DOE selected 13 cities in 2007 and an additional 12 cities in March 2008 to help lay the foundation for a domestic solar energy market.Solar Energy Handbook technologies could provide at least five gigawatts of electric capacity and. at the same time.

2009 .Solar Energy Handbook 232 May 01.

Solar Energy Handbook Chapter 11: Glossary May 01. 2009 233 .

Electrochemical Cell: A device containing two conducting electrodes. Concentrator arrays track the sun and use only direct sunlight since the diffuse portion cannot be focused. typically replacing conventional building materials. Copper Indium Diselenide (CuInSe2. Crystalline Silicon: A type of PV cell made from a slice of single-crystal silicon or polycrystalline silicon. BIPV (Building-Integrated Photovoltaics): A term for the design and integration of PV technology into the building envelope. Distributed Systems: Systems that are installed at or near the location where the electricity is used. Conversion Efficiency: The ratio of the electrical energy generated by a solar PV cell to the solar energy impacting the cell. 2009 . one positive and the other negative. or CIS): A polycrystalline thin-film PV material (sometimes incorporating gallium (CIGS) and/or sulfur).g. mirrors or lenses) to increase the amount of light incident on a solar PV cell. It is made by depositing layers of doped silicon on a substrate normally using plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition of silane. Anti-Reflection Coating: A thin coating of a material with a specific refractive index applied to a cell to reduce the reflection of light. as opposed to central systems that supply electricity to grids. Balance of System (BOS): All parts of a PV system excluding the solar module Base Load: The average amount of electric power that a utility must supply in any period. Concentrator: A PV device that uses optical elements (e.Solar Energy Handbook Glossary Amorphous Silicon: A thin-film solar photovoltaic (PV) cell material which has a glassy rather than crystalline structure. made of dissimilar materials that are immersed in a chemical solution 234 May 01. Electrical Grid: A network for electricity distribution across a large area. British Thermal Unit (BTU): The amount of heat energy required to raise one pound of water from a temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit to 61 degrees Fahrenheit at one atmosphere pressure.. Cell Efficiency: The ratio of the electrical energy produced by a PV cell (under full sun conditions or 1 kW/m2) to the energy from sunlig ht fa lling upon the PV cell. Cadmium Telluride (CdTe): A polycrystalline thin-film PV material. A residential PV system is a distributed system.

Fixed Tilt Array: A solar PV array set at a fixed angle to the horizontal. diffuse. The kWh is a unit of energy. Usually expressed in kilowatts per square meter. Independent Power System: A power generation system that is independent of the mains grid. Kilowatt-hour (kWh): The amount of energy that derives from a power of one thousand watts acting over a period of one hour. Megawatt (MW): A measurement of power equal to one million watts. Fuel Cell: An electrochemical device that converts the energy of a fuel directly into electricity and heat and is therefore highly energy efficient. Inverter: An inverter converts DC power from the PV array/battery to AC power.Solar Energy Handbook (electrolyte) that transmits positive ions from the negative to the positive electrode and thus forms an electrical charge. Energy Payback Time: The time required for any energy producing system or device to produce as much energy as was required in its manufacture. One gigawatt hour is equal to one gigawatt being used for a period of one hour. Gigawatt (GW): A measurement of power equal to a thousand million watts. Grid-Connected System: A solar electric or PV system in which the PV array acts like a central generating plant. Flat-Plate PV: A solar PV array or module that does not contain concentrating devices and so responds to both direct and diffuse sunlight. and reflected solar radiation that strikes a surface. Used either for standalone systems or grid-connected systems. supplying power to the grid. Gigawatt-Hour (GWh): A measurement of energy. Kilowatt (kW): A unit of electrical power equal to one thousand watts.600 kJ. 2009 235 . Maximum Power Point Tracker (MPPT): A power conditioning unit that automatically operates the PV generator at its MPP under all conditions. Irradiance: The direct. May 01.000 hours. or one megawatt being used for 1. Fresnel Lens: A concentrating lens. 1 kWh = 3. positioned above and concave to a PV material to concentrate light on the material.

such as interconnections.000 w/m2. Net Metering: The practice of exporting surplus solar power during the day to the electricity grid. in addition to converting sunlight into electricity. Photovoltaic Device: A solid-state electrical device that converts light directly into direct current electricity of voltage-current characteristics that are a function of the characteristics of the light source and the materials in and design of the device. The multitude of grain boundaries in the material reduces the cell efficiency. such as hydrogen. Photovoltaic Module: The smallest environmentally protected essentially planar assembly of solar cells and ancillary parts. Photocurrent: An electric current induced by radiant energy. which can then be withdrawn for use. 236 May 01. Photovoltaic Panel: refers to a physically connected collection of modules. Peak Sun Hours: The equivalent number of hours per day when solar irradiance averages 1. including the array and balance of system components. terminals. S. intended to generate direct current power under unconcentrated sunlight. Orientation: Placement with respect to the cardinal directions N.Solar Energy Handbook Mono-crystalline Solar Cell: A form of solar cell made from a thin slice of a single large crystal of silicon. which either causes the home owner electric meter to go backwards and/or simply creates a financial credit on the home owner's electricity bill. Photovoltaic Cell: The smallest discrete element in a PV module that performs the conversion of light into electrical energy to produce a direct current and voltage. Photoelectrochemical Cell: A type of photovoltaic device in which the electricity induced in the cell is used immediately within the cell to produce a chemical. Multi-crystalline: A material that has solidified at a rate such that many small crystals form. Photovoltaic-Thermal System: A photovoltaic system that. E. 2009 . One-axis Tracking: A PV System structure that is capable of rotating on a single axis in order to track the movement of the sun. W. Photovoltaic System: A complete set of components for converting sunlight into electricity by the photovoltaic process. collects the residual heat energy and delivers both heat and electricity in usable form.

such as copper indium diselenide. used to make photovoltaic cells. gallium arsenide. Siemens Process: A commercial method of making purified silicon. which in turn drives a turbogenerator. All grains have the same atomic crystal lattice. Tracker: Any device used to direct a PV array toward the sun. Ribbon (Photovoltaic) Cells: A type of photovoltaic device made in a continuous process of pulling material from a molten bath of photovoltaic material. a few microns or less in thickness. however. and are often called semiconductors. Solar Thermal Electric: Method of producing electricity from solar energy by using focused sunlight to heat a working fluid. a dark gray semi-metal. Transistors and other electronic devices are made from semiconducting materials.Solar Energy Handbook Photovoltaic Effect: The effect that causes a voltage to be developed across the junction of two different materials when they are exposed to light. Semiconductor: A material that has an electrical conductivity in between that of a metal and an insulator. Power Conversion Efficiency: The ratio of output power to input power. cadmium telluride. Tracking Array: A PV array that is moved to follow the path of the sun in order to maintain the maximum incident solar radiation on its surface. vertical and horizontal) and following the sun for maximum efficiency of the solar array. Polycrystalline Cell: A wafer of silicon with a multi-grained structure. Occurs in a wide range of silicate minerals and makes up approximately 28% of the earth's crust (by weight). to form a thin sheet of material. May 01. 2009 237 . It is the most common semiconductor material used in making PV cells either traditionally in its crystalline form or more recently as an amorphous thin film. Thin Film: A layer of semiconductor material. Two-Axis Tracking: A system capable of rotating independently about two axes (e.g. or amorphous silicon. each grain has a unique orientation in space. Tilt Angle: The angle of inclination of a solar collector or solar module measured from the horizontal. Solar Thermal: A form of power generation using concentrated sunlight to heat water or other fluid that may then used to drive a motor or turbine. such as silicon.. thereby producing a unique reflection of light. Silicon: A chemical element with atomic number 14.

Watt: The unit of electrical power commonly used to define the electricity consumption of an appliance. Watt Hour: A unit of energy equal to one watt of power being used for one hour.Solar Energy Handbook Wafer: A thin sheet of semiconductor (PV material) made by cutting it from a single crystal or ingot. The power developed when a current of one ampere flows through a potential difference of one volt. 2009 . 238 May 01.

and Financial Statistics May 01. 2009 239 .Solar Energy Handbook Chapter 12: Performance. Valuation.

2 6. 6 1.021 316 727 770 61 45 161 428 358 372 928 203 615 NM 59 23 79 394 229 203 1.2 16.390 784 Enterprise Value ($M) 195 701 1.48 Mean Median 99 233 68 222 8 153 130 126 128 274 NM 2.8 0.3 0.3 0. 3 1. 3 0. 1 0. 6 1. 7 1.5 1. 5 2.4 LDK W FR SOL 4063 633527 3436 4043 625408 649700 B 11Y56 2-EW 1-OW 2-EW NR NR NR NR NR NR 1-OW 1-Pos 1-Pos 1-Pos NR NR NR NR NR NR 2-Neu U SD U SD U SD JP Y TWD JP Y JP Y TWD KRW E UR 8. 5 1.1 0. 2 0. 2 1. 4 10. 468 0.1 1.51 93.1 1.5 23. 899 2. 1 1.38 14. 5 0. 7 7.74 34.8 9.6 10. 9 1.105 401 903 2.79 2. 0 NM 5.403 3.8 NM 8.00 3.0 15. 4 1. 2 0.6 1. 266 2. 2 7. 2 1.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 264: Barclays Capital Global Solar Comparable Valuation Metrics as of 4/30/2009 C ompany Sol ar C ell Manufacturers C hina Sunergy Energy C onversion Devices ErSol E-Ton Ev ergreen Solar First Solar J A Solar Motech Q-C ell s SunPow er SunTech P ow er Ticker CS UN EN ER B0LGLV4 B06BMV ESLR FSLR JASO 660944 QC E-D E SPW RA STP Rating 2-EW 3-UW NR NR 2-EW 2-EW 1-OW NR 2-EW 2-EW 3-UW S ector R ating 1-Pos 1-Pos NR NR 1-Pos 1-Pos 1-Pos NR 2-Neu 1-Pos 1-Pos Local C urrency U SD U SD E UR TWD U SD U SD U SD TWD E UR U SD U SD Price 4/30/2009 3. 6 11.80 2. 3 NM 0. 1 12.9 1.203 2.2 1.2 0.2 0.3 3.1 5.5 13. 7 2. 0 1. 9 1.8 14.5 0.2 0.10 1. 5 2. 9 13.1 1. 2 0.133 2.1 7.6 0. 1 37. 8 4.722 104 3. 778 478 19. 4 14.98 Mean Median 4.1 0. 5 14. 4 6. 4 0.4 0.3 1.6 7. 2 0. 4 7. 2 0.2 0.2 0. 3 0. 2 5. 8 1. 5 10.78 158. 2 0. 1 0. 8 1. 8 1.3 0.1 1.0 30.4 0. 4 1. 3 Pri ce to Earnings 2009E 2010E NM 25.999 4.2 -0. 8 1. 4 13. 653 2. 3 2.6 11.2 0. 5 2. 7 8. 6 1.7 13.8 0.7 2010E NM 0.535 2.31 Mean Median 42 53 197 28 34 71 42 33 148 NM 35 56 68 45 0. 0 2.3 1. 5 11. 4 12. 4 NM 0.1 7.80 Mean Median 1. 4 NM 3. 1 0.436. 7 3. 4 1.2 2.9 NM 1.0 0.9 14. 538 742 Price to Sales 2009E 2010E 0. 7 0. 4 0.7 0.0 7.00 584.93 Mean Median Pol ysili con M anufacturers LDK Sol ar MEMC R eneS ola Shin-Et su Chemical Sino-American Silicon Sumco Tokuyama Corporation Topc o Sc ientif ic OCI W ac ker Market Cap ($M) 120 784 1.0 4.7 0.1 0. 8 NM 13. 8 1. 7 1.00 79.9 1.1 0.4 4. 9 1.526 1. 8 13. 634 3. 5 0. 5 NM 9.4 1. 3 0. 9 2.5 0.09 18.5 0. 2 1. 751 2. 1 0.2 1.8 0.647 227 21.1 1. 6 13.5 30.994 601 6.7 NM 0. 089 2.5 System I ntegrators C armanah Technologies C entros olar AG C onergy Solars trom Sunways *C MH B0LL75 706672 566211 703682 NR NR 2-EW NR NR NR NR 2-Neu NR NR C AD E UR E UR E UR E UR 0.50 4. Barcla ys Capital estimates 240 May 01.5 0.760. 3 1.3 NM 0. 6 1.2 21.004 5. 9 0. 8 11.20 3.3 0. 4 0.35 225. 7 1.4 0.2 0.6 13.2 0.9 1.4 NM 28. 6 0. 9 1. 7 PEG 2009E NM 0.5 1. 4 0. 5 NM 4.2 0.4 8.1 1.1 NM 0. 0 NM 0. 2 0.08 29. 1 0.91 6.1 0. 0 0. 3 1. 000.3 1. 3 0. 3 1. 0 5.5 16. 0 9. 2 0.6 5. 2 0. 6 1. 2009 . 4 2.3 7. 9 1.6 1.5 Source: First Call. 9 0.78 1.0 13.4 0.50 21.9 0.6 0.6 NM 28.84 0. 0 NM 0. 1 1. 9 11. 8 1. 6 1. 0 1. 3 0. 2 0.1 0. 8 0. 8 0. 2 0. 9 0. 7 2.9 0.29 3.5 0. 9 2.1 0. 2 0. 3 0. 6 0.0 23. 346 2. 4 0.9 EV to Sales 2009E 2010E 0.9 0. 7 15. 1 7.1 NM NM N/A N/A Verti call y I ntegrated Manufacturers R EC Solar World Trina Solar Yingli Green Energy REC-NO 581986 TS L YGE 1-OW NR 2-EW 1-OW 2-Neu NR NR NR N OK E UR U SD U SD 60.1 0.00 25. 2 18.8 1.2 Sol ar E qui pment C omposi te GT Solar R ot h & Rau C entrot herm Oerlik on Spire BTU International Manz Automat ion Meyer Burger S OLR B142TD4 B 2885W 6 4612757 SP IR B TU I B1D XPB B1HDMD 2-EW 3-UW 2-EW NR NR NR 2-EW 2-EW 1-OW 2-Neu 2-Neu NR NR NR 2-Neu 2-Neu U SD E UR E UR SW F U SD E UR E UR SW F 7.1 0. 3 1. 1 14. 1 0.5 12.2 NM 0. 7 1.8 5. 1 0. 6 22.8 26.4 0.1 NM 0.4 NM NM NM NM 0.1 0. 259 5.00 95. 4 0.6 2.5 NM 0.1 NM 13. 6 1. 3 2.2 0. 3 0.4 0.4 0.2 NM 0. 5 1. 5 0. 199 3. 7 0. 9 0. 4 7.4 0.9 0.2 0.6 0. 3 0.7 0. 2 8.4 0. 6 1.04 18.2 2. 2 0. 4 5. 7 0.5 1.6 23.3 0. 2 11. 8 2. 0 2.6 11.7 0.8 0. 5 9. 4 6.3 17.00 16. 7 1.29 0.14 6. 3 5.38 Mean Median 894 3. 422 560 666 14. 8 1.6 0.331 4.8 1. 5 2. 1 0. 7 0.6 NM 0.924 640 742 1.3 14.00 7.9 0. 8 1. 6 1. 3 0.5 -9. 9 11. 1 0. 3 0.5 0.38 104.0 NM NM 6. 157 112 4.2 16. company reports. 9 NM NM 0. 6 10.434 279 393 15. 7 3.7 18. 0 0.3 0. 4 17. 334 10 401 629 274 0. 1 6. 7 0.7 NM 13.47 4. 1 0.35 66. 2 0. 2 0.5 1.60 2.00 78. 898 667 3.4 1.0 17.992 518 3. 2 8.7 0. 2 11. 598 2. 3 1.6 0.6 2.43 187.9 1. 9 NM NM NM NM NM N/A N/A NM NM 13. 4 36. 6 7.65 14.1 0.1 0. 2 22.442 547 699 1.3 0. 9 1.5 13. 5 0. 4 NM 0.6 1. 1 16.2 NM 13.1 0. 7 1. 6 1.6 13. 9 5. 0 1. 3 NM 0.2 1.55 4.6 Module Manufacturers aleo s olar C anadian Solar Solar-Fabrik Solarf un Solart ron Solon AG B189YN CS IQ 739438 SOLF B06XP07 7450738 NR 3-UW NR 3-UW NR 3-UW NR 1-Pos NR 1-Pos NR 2-Neu E UR U SD E UR U SD TH B E UR 5.7 NM 1. 2 0.2 0. 5 2.3 0.0 0.6 0. 5 0.8 1. 662 3.8 0. 5 2. 087 4.7 9.3 0.7 12. 6 0.23 27. 3 11.6 1. 1 2.894 1.8 10. 3 1. 2 1.1 0.00 16.2 0. 0 0. 6 1. 2 0.2 0.4 0.344 2. 7 0. 1 10. 6 6. 1 0. 0 2.9 7. 3 0. 6 0.719 2. 2 0. 8 0. 3 2. 4 1.6 0.92 9.6 NM NM NM 0.

80 M ean M edia n Nasd aq DAX T aiwan Nikkei COMP 1 87653 1 80530 NIK2K 1. 1 -68.6 -6.203 2. 30 .6 22.65 3 2.5 8.18.7 3 6.9 2.0 36.9 3.9 2 .3 -2.3 0.31. 3 8.02 .2 -15.9 2 2. 6 NA / .8 53 .2 23 .0 4 3.0 28.63 -6 3.2 4.0 -1.5 5.6 10.1 -7 6.6. 8 -57.2 -7.8 3.2 12 .7 32.0 -1 6. 0 -2. 3 -3 9.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 265: Barclays Capital Global Solar Comparable Trading Statistics as of 4/30/2009 Com pa ny Sola r Cell Man uf actu re rs China Su nerg y Ener gy Conver sion Devices ErSol E-T on Everg reen So lar F irst Solar JA Solar M otech Q.7 8 .2 59.3 17.4 -1 1.35 2 25.0 5 .7 4.0 -11. 2 -82.73 -7 3.3 1.1 142 .6 2 9.65 1 4.38 1 4.0 1.9 -72.0 0 .08 9 2. 9 16 .53 -3 3.8 5.3 -3 3. 7 -78.3 1. 1 8 .97 57.2 0 .0 0.35 -6 2.5 4 .1 -0.79 2 . 6 -51. 2 144.8 0 . 0 2.6 19. 17 2 .8 35.63 4 3. 7 3 1.6 4 179. 2009 241 . 96 325 .1 2 .1.1 9 .5 -4 0.0 0 .999 4.8 6.79 -5 6.OW NR 2-EW 1.08 7 4.2 0 .8 1 8.2 2 .0 -17 .0 -60.0 9.5 29.17.6 5 .7 9 8.436 .25 9 5. 05 170 .44 2 5 47 6 99 1. 2 -55.6 4 .75 413. 24 NA / .7 27.5 -6 3. 63 35. 0 -8.7 20.4 35.6 3 6. 9 -2 3.3 -4 0.3 -7 6. 4 -1.105 4 01 9 03 2.4 2 184.5 5.3 0 .2 0 .5 11 .344 2.8. company reports.91 6 .0 -58% -67% -66% -97% -62% -63% -85% -93% -0.79 -7 4.0 2 .4 26.6 . 3 -67.0 30 7.535 2.0 27.09 -8 3.35 6 6.5 1 .2 13 .8 8 .3 2. 0 3.403 3. 1 -46.47 4.5 -0.6 77 .89 8 667 3.20 3 .2 -75.55 4 .9 10.2 -13 .0 2.8 4 9.13 12.0 0 .6 4 9.9 . 5 -74.4 128 .8 1 7.11.00 58 4.6 4 4. 6 -46.19 9 3.9 0.4 11 .10.9 26 3.1 20. 8 31 .0 2.7 15 6.0 9 .78 15 8.OW 1.1 0 . 9 8.16 -6 5.8 -21 . 4 NA -84.8 9 .6.1 156 .6 -1 4.53 8 742 1. 09 NA / . 1 -85.45 185.3 5 .2 .5 44 .3 5 .8 4 0.3 36.20 .0 5.7 17.0.9 0 .93 -8 4.14 6 .647 2 27 21.26 6 4 .33 4 10 401 629 274 0 .9 -0. 47 250.8 8 .5 33 .7 6 .36 -8 1.92 195.Cells SunPower SunT ech Power CSUN ENER B0LG LV4 B06BMV ESLR FSLR JASO 6 60944 QCE-DE SPWRA STP 2-EW 3 -UW NR NR 2-EW 1.35.3 0.4 -2 1.4 -1.6 2.2 2 .7 -1 9.4 9 .0 14 .0 7 0. 61 68.78 1 .0 32.86 N/A -4 2.2 25.0 8 .2 2 .2 57.09 1 8.9 -8.894 1.OW 2 -Neu NR NR NR NOK EUR U SD U SD 6 0.8 29.50 4 .6 26 .5 7 . 5 NA / 126.9 -10 .7 -14 .2 49.59 8 2.9 10.11.0 17.0 5 3.1 3. 44 122 .9 2 587.3 12.2 -2.3 1.66 2 3.1 -6 2.8 .0 13.4. 55 92. 3 -58.526 1. 7 -0.38.2 3 . 8 -50.9 0 .9 2 .21 -5 6.4 8 .02 -7 3.1 .80 2 .1 12.10 1.2 5 7.6.52 128.8 -6.133 2.48 M ean M edia n Syste m In teg ra tor s Car mana h Te chnolog ies Cen trosola r AG Con ergy Solar strom Sunways *CMH B0LL7 5 7 06672 5 66211 7 03682 NR NR 2-EW NR NR NR NR 2 -Neu NR NR C AD EUR EUR EUR EUR 0 .62 -8 5.29 3 .7 -2 1. 3 -29.5 -2 3.08 2 9. 3 -69.3 3. 9 0.1 4 .51 9 3. 9 -1 4.5 1 .0 10 9.0 0.4 -4 6.66 8 3.3 2.4 7 3. 64 168.4 28 .2 2.09 -2 5.3 4.00 7 8.Am erican Silicon Sum co T okuyam a Corp orat o n i T opco Scien tific OCI Wacke r LDK WF R SOL 4063 6 33527 3436 4043 6 25408 6 49700 B11Y56 2-EW 1. 1 -58.5 104.7 -67% -87% -67% -85% -72% -87% -78% -79% 51% 118% 137% 89% 102% 78% 96% 95% 8 94 3.7 17.27 186.2 0 .8 84 .42 -8 1.3 46.0 27.21.12. 0 -69.3 8.32 -7 5. 8 -9.8 26. 5 -60.3 1 .9. 14 795.1 361 .3 6.04 1 8.8 1. Barcla ys Capital estimates May 01.57 -6 3. 5 -44.2 63.15 7 112 4.38.1 .24 -7 6. 98 .0 0 .3 -7 1.02 -6 2.3 -1 6.5 1 2.3 1. 8 -68. 5 93 .6 2 .1 5 . Fir stCall.4 .6 3 .8 4 .1 -18 .OW 2-EW NR NR NR NR NR NR 1.9 8 .6 .OW NR 2-EW 1.8 5.OW 1-Pos 1-Pos 1-Pos NR NR NR NR NR NR 2 -Neu U SD U SD U SD JPY T WD JPY JPY T WD KRW EUR 8 .43 18 7. 3 11 .6 72.7 13.2 13 .5 7.0 9.7 2 .4 4 .1 5 .6 -2.2 -3 5.1 2.1 0 .4 2 .0 6.5 -1 6.5 33 6.0 2 7.722 1 04 3.3 27.9 8 10.1 0 .6. 4 -69.4 13 .42 2 560 666 14.4 -3.77 8 478 19.4 -2 1.7 6.48.3 2.4 52.0 -2 7. 1 .5 0 .1 N/A -7 5.7 11 .9 -67.07 -7 4.0 -6.5 2 8.OW 3 -UW 1-Pos 1-Pos NR NR 1-Pos 1-Pos 1-Pos NR 2 -Neu 1-Pos 1-Pos U SD U SD EUR T WD U SD U SD U SD T WD EUR U SD U SD 3 .2 5 .00 2 5.0 0 .74 3 4.33 12.3.2 8.0 1 . 0 -34.9 20 .4 . 7 -64.3 1 .8 39.15.33 -8 5.8 42 3. 6 -73.331 4. 9 -43.0 2 .71 -8 0. 2 NA -23.00 1 6.60 2 .05 -6 7.2 3.8 -1 9.6 -5 9.8 6 .00 7 .9 5 .3 2 9.89 9 2.719 2. 0 22.7 3 . Barclays Ca pital re search Source: First Call. 6 .0 1 .3.95 -3 9.5 1 .3 2 6.0 5.9 24 640 742 1.98 M ean M edia n Sola r Equ ipm en t Com p osit e GT Solar Roth & R u a Cen troth erm Oe rlikon Spire BTU I ntern ational M anz Autom ation M eyer Bur ger SOL R B14 2TD4 B2885 W6 46 1275 7 SPIR BT U I B1DXPB B1HDM D 2-EW 3 -UW 2-EW NR NR NR 2-EW 2-EW 1-OW 2 -Neu 2 -Neu NR NR NR 2 -Neu 2 -Neu U SD EUR EUR SWF U SD EUR EUR SWF 7 .0 3.3 1.0 3 .4 10 .97 -7 3.4 17.6 145. 2 -78.8 5.59. 46 626.5 20 . 9 -63.9 94 601 6. 9 -65.71 -5 5. 4 -7. 2 16 . 7 -61.3 -11 .5 6.4 0 . 4 -7 2.73 -8 4.03 204.4 .2 1.004 5.9 87.6 1 .50 2 1.1 1.1 3 . 39 NA / .98 .8 5.1 0 .9 9 5. 8 -68.6 11 . 9 -1.2 1 .8 16 .6 .9 3 .6 11.1 9.3 1 5.4 2 9.7 11.3 16.7 1.0 -0.49 8.13.3 17.6 15 .9 -11 .2 .9 8. 5 16 .8 4 . 79 142. 0 -51.53 -4 8.5 11 .2 0 .1 13.4 -0.23 2 7.7 2.2 -5.0 3.46 8 2 .4 12.66 .2 -1 0.0 19.0 -4 2.08 -7 1.8 10.00 0. 0 .13 -6 2. 7 -34.3 63.2 -2 2.1 -7 6.9 2.390 7 84 195 701 1. 1 -17.7 23 .17.6 1.11.6 54.6 8 3.4 72 .8 11.6 4.1 1 7.29 0 .5 6 6. 8 NA / 536.9 14 . 7 357% 75% 126% -4 5% 138% 81% 62% -5 7% 92% 78% 4.9 7 .0 0 .0 18.33.9 2.0 85.0 18 .5 9 .9 -21 .9 37 6.8 0.1 30 .0 .00 3 . 0 -58.3 0 .4 2.30 -7 1.4 1.Etsu Chemica l Sino.7 51 . 8 -59. 0 -65.3 16 2.09 .6 4.6 12 . 7 142.65 -7 7.6 13.6 1.6 31 7.2 43.7 .8 22.5 7 .4 32 .7 -67.5 34 . 7 4. 29 100.6 9.9 -0.4 -8.3 -21% -76% -88% -54% -80% -64% -76% 211% 60% 124% 76% 74% 109% 76% 99 2 33 68 2 22 8 1 53 1 30 1 26 128 274 NM 2.79 -8 7.5 12.66 -7 6.00 9 5.38 -1 2. 1 14 .83 -8 2.1 8 .8 -2 6. 9 10 .0 0 .84 0 .38 10 4.3 21.1 -81% -78% -18% -71% -81% -41% -87% -67% -85% -72% -70% -68% -72% 129% 43% 53% 29% 143% 120% 126% 81% 73% 48% 193% 94% 81% T icker Ratin g Sec tor R tin g a Loc al Cur ren cy Pr ice 4/30/ 09 M ark et Cap ($M ) Ente rp ris e Value ($M ) A era ge v Daily Vo l (M ) Week M on th Qua rte r % R tur n e YT D L TM 2 007 20 08 52 week High Lo w % Chan ge F ro m 52W Hi 52W L o Note : All f orward estima tes ba sed on First call conse nsus figu res Sour ce: Com pany r epor ts. 9 -69.1 22.8 2.2 0.1 1.08 48.4 -13.2 5 .1 0 .0 1 4.8 5 1.27 -6 9. 9 . 0 -84.6.8 2 .31 M ean M edia n Ver tical ly Int egr at ed M anu fac tur er s REC Solar World T rina Solar Yingli Gr een Ener gy REC-NO 5 81986 T SL YG E 1.760 .00 1 6.93 M ean M edia n Polys ilico n M anu fac tur er s LDK Solar M EMC Ren eSo la Shin.0 -85% -78% -88% -23% -69% -48% -34% -59% -65% -62% -61% -63% 113% 62% 72% 41% 77% 93% 60% 35% 43% 76% 67% 67% 1 20 7 84 1.4 1 3.3 -7 3. 4 -67. 8 -86.9 28 .4 49 .4 31. 4 -41.2 9 0. 5 45.021 3 16 7 27 7 70 61 45 1 61 4 28 4 41 3 72 # # 928 203 615 NM 59 23 79 394 329 203 1 .7 -75% -51% -74% -75% -69% -74% 56% 105% 152% 179% 123% 129% 42 53 1 97 28 34 71 42 33 148 NA / 35 56 68 45 0 .9 -4.4 NA -59.4 5 2.92 9 .1 13.5 2 .82 -6 2.9 8 .22 -6 8.434 2 79 3 93 15.1 9 6.2 7. 1 -71.8 . 4 -67.3 -1 3.38 M ean M edia n M odu le M anu fac tur er s ale o solar Can adian Solar Solar -Fa brik Solar fun Solar tron Solon AG B18 9YN CSIQ 7 39438 SO LF B06 XP07 74 5073 8 NR 3 -UW NR 3 -UW NR 3 -UW NR 1-Pos NR 1-Pos NR 2 -Neu EUR U SD EUR U SD THB EUR 5 . 0 -70.99 2 5 18 3.6 11 .4 9 .10.6 -13 . 66 NA / 134 .0 13 8.3.8 -2.1 -5 8.9 6 .0 1 .6 14 . 9 12 .34 6 2.4 -9.2 14.75 1 2. 11 75.2 0 . 0 -65.6 4 .7 0 .1 15.42 -7 8. 7 -75.0 2 . 7 -58.00 7 9. 7 -12 .9 -7 9.

1 90.1 3 1.2 21.3. 924 1. 687 1.9 2 27.5 0 Sol ar Eq ui pmen t Co mp os ite G T Sola r Ro th & Rau Ce ntro ther m O erlikon Spir e BT U Inte rna tiona l M anz Au tom ation M eyer Burg er SOLR B142 TD4 B2 885W 6 461 2757 SPI R BTUI B1 DXPB B1HDMD 2. 312 3.04 1 8.9 6.5 3 0.8 43.5 4.0.5 5 0.6 3.1 60 .99 3 0. 843 5.4 9 1.0.38 10 4.12. 051 759 2. 72 1.5.7 75 .3 7 .8.1 1 0.Ton Ever gre en So a r l F irst So lar J A Sola r M ote ch Q -Cells Sun Power Sun Te ch Power Tic ker Rati ng C rren cy u 4/30 /09 Sh ares Ou t ('M ) Cas h ($ M) De bt ($M ) Net Cash / Sh are ( $) BV/Sha re ($) 20 08 20 09E 201 0E 200 8 2009 E 2 010E 2008 20 09E 20 10E CSUN ENER B0LGL V4 B0 6BMV ESLR F SLR JASO 660 944 QCE-DE SPWRA ST P 2.7 3 62.877 1 .020 82 77 23 8 35 2 67 6 33 2 811 338 712 3. 41 .2 7 .6 2 06.24 0.8 65 . 276 759 .1 4 .7 4 1.54 NM . 435 1.1. 924 1 . 1 98.81 2 .7 9 NM 0. 18 1.4 4 1.9 3 56.5 2 66.1 1 1.25 7 .08 3 5.8 5 .70 6 .8 2 1.98 4 . 64 4 .99 7 9 1 75.1 27 .1 27 .1 2 2.EW 3-UW 2.14 0.303 378 3.09 6. 875 1. 7 783 .2 .9 1 70.93 Me an Me dia n 40 43 10 10 1 16 2 82 15 6 26 1 82 86 17 0 10 8 86 95 423 15 42 101 716 1.2 63 350 709 357 .3 6 1. 518 3.0 86.91 6 . 2 712 .6 0 0.3 9.84 0 .6 4 1. 00 0.1.35 6 6.50 1 3.77 .8 NM 8.6 5 8.84 5.78 15 8.233 2.2 258 .4 9 0.09 1 8.7 9 0.2 61 30 364 255 113 2.7 49 . 071 2.6 6 1.1 728 .0.6 3.98 1 7.48 Me an Me dia n Syst em Int eg ra tors Ca rm anah Te chno o gies l Ce ntro solar AG Co ner gy Sola rstr om Sun ways *CMH B0 LL75 706 672 566 211 703 682 NR NR 2.6 NM -5.7 2. 35 2. 62 5. 64 0.3 -15 6. 57 . 23 0. 5 32. 622 1.7 84 49 174 .277 1 .3 7 0. 45 5.0 5 0. 585 637 12 .0 7 13.45 0. 883 NM 1.65 1 4. 0 NM 94. 218 680 685 1 490 867 398 3 949 1 676 1 178 . 512 170 418 54 2.2 7 3 2 Not e: All for ward estim ates base d on Fir stcall co nsen sus fig ure s Sour ce: Comp any r epo rts.0 22 .99 4.3 6 90.83 1 4.1. 607 1.0.2 2 0. 81 1.0. 6 994 .7 0 0.0 9 0.0 5 .5 5 NM 3.0 266 .7 130 .70 . 7 100 .43 18 7.0.4 82 528 1.7 1.EW NR NR NR NR NR NR 1-O W USD USD USD JPY TWD JPY JPY TWD KRW EUR 8 .2 7 7.50 4 .1.6 7 .76 3 2.4 361 .0.NO 581 986 TSL YGE 1-O W NR 2.4 8. 11 9.EW NR NR CAD EUR EUR EUR EUR 0 .0.0 23 162 34 468 1.1.1 8 1.7 6 .6 8 80.695 3 .0 167 . 5 17 .1 NM 3.2.3 2. 710 1.3 0 1.905 29 5 4.76 3.60 .0 1 70.1 2 0.1 7 9.54 1 7.8 3 2. 812 2.3 2 1.7 2 2.55 1 1. 4 72.2. 89 0.47 4 .1 9 0.2.9 3 1.00 2.1.9 2. 5 111 53 55 4 34 9 48 1 3.2 5 23. 62 11 . 9 743 .94 2 9.55 4 . 458 65 6 1.2 8 0.8 487 .10 NM 1.50 2 1.6 352 . 745 888 1.1 284 .0 336 .80 .3 NM 1 17.82 1 6. 6 37.269 1 .9 5.0 0 7 8.2 9 3 .6 1. 2009 .5 1 .7 8 0. 388 3. 42 1.0. 6 53.18 1 4.9 1 Pol ysili con M anu fac tu re rs L DK So lar M EMC Re neSola Shin -Etsu C em c al h i Sino -Ame rican Silico n Sum co T oku yama Corp ora tion T opc o Scien tific O CI Wa cker LDK WF R SO L 40 63 633 527 34 36 40 43 625 408 649 700 B11 Y5 6 2.6 8 1.8.1 9 0. 597 1.4 6 0.82 1. 2 0.6 28.7 0 0.6 730 .4 5 1.70 1 1. 15 0.9 81.4 78.874 2 .6 102 .76 . 8 69 .29 0 .0 00.734 1 .2.7 5 .8 0 Me an Me dia n 14 4 NA 19 13 9 9 4 3 29 9 94 117 112 NM 6 34 88 39 70 88 0 5 0 NM 3 12 6 6 5 5 0.0.9 10 .0.87 0 .23 2 7.14 1 6.7 382 . 331 1. 093 1. 9 3.27 3 6.1 5 1.6.9 6 3.1 35 1 25 5 39 8 41 0 11 2 1. 9 72.0 8 21 .69 6.2 .9 233 .3 1 1.4 5 0.49 6 .2 400 .0.79 4 9.7 1 5.0 3.760 .8 8.1.EW 1-O W 3-UW USD USD EUR TWD USD USD USD TWD EUR USD USD 3 .9 4 1.0 0 2 5. 0 31.9 1 2. 329 711 684 1.0 3 55.6 1 0 1 0.6 5 4.5 130 .38 6.82 1 0.06 -4 1.8 15 .0 5 0. 40 .8 37. 55 2.5 3 3.00 1 6.52 5 30 1 2 .6 242 . 5 507 .5 0 0.4 5 .1 5 0.1 6 .2 21.40 .80 8.5 6 0.2 5 2.EW NR NR NR 2. 181 1 .066 1 .2 0 . 11 0.119 56 9 1 1.46 7 .19 4 . 273 37 4 1. Barcla ys Capital estimates 242 May 01.397 1 .14 6.1.0.895 79 0 63 9 2 .28 1 4.74 3 4. 126 5.2 17 .4 33 6.0 81 .9 1.54 .10 .5 NM 74 .2 4 83.6 5 42 15 25 3 12 12 67 15 10 22 NM 3 5 10 7 0 117 NM 10 26 38 18 0.50 5 2.31 Me an Me dia n Vertic ally I nt egrat ed Man uf act urers REC Sola r Wo rld T rina Solar Ying li Gre en Ene rgy REC.0 400 .7 308 .98 3 2.27 .2 92.5 185 .17 0 . F irst Call. 7 53.4 9 22.2 15.14. company reports.1 8 2. 258 1.4 5 0.1 5 0.20 0 .9 1. 35 .8 .38 1 4.59 .5 36. 840 .5 3 96.2 3 0.5.6 26 520 323 .4 6 0.0 -29 8.5 7 0.346 73 4 1 . 246 5.1. 51 0. 8 475 .83 .8 7.9 429 . 1 0.1 9 0.1 67.7 534 .7 1.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 266: Barclays Capital Global Solar Comparable Financial Metrics as of 4/30/2009 L oca l Price Balan ce Sh ee t EBIT DA ($.0.0.00 7 . 8 89.9 46.0 0 9 5.4 5 02.78 1 .4 1 0.2 8 0.0 71.0.54 7 . 538 0.63 1 .1 5 6.36 2.6 13 .7.5.58 .5 17 . 27 2.7 75 654 29 1.2 13 4 71 186 . 6 16.3 12.4 93 .0 1 29.0. 133.2 3 .80 2 . 33 2.7 2 11.51 9 3.8 70 44 8 1 . 553 2.2 8 5.4 2 3.2 8 .2 932 .0.35 22 5. 72 .8 22 . 0 0.0 9 7 6 0 .44 7 .6 3 2.00 1 6.1 216 . 1 1.93 9 .0.3 2 .1. 709 69 93 30 4 41 4 74 7 38 2 68 2 31 2 64 4 3 .6 . 323 NM 107 263 386 849 386 0.4 584 .0 0.6 76.7 -0 .3 2 8.02 0 . M) Co ns ens us Reven u e ($ M) C n sen sus EPS ( $) o Co mp an y Sol ar Cell M an uf act urers Ch ina Sun erg y Ene rgy Conver sion D vices e Er So l E.1 5 21.98 Me an Me dia n 49 4 11 2 28 12 9 19 1 12 1 295 1.34 -2 1.6 32 .6.98 7 .9 5 1.5 3 0.9.2 1 0.436 . 874 1.8 328 .1 1.5 528 .29 1 2 0.393 1.89 -0.6 2 NM 0.85 .1.889 96 3 63 9 386 489 680 460 473 2.2 9 7.88 1. 4 31. 64 .4 27 .2 41 8.267 15 2 35 6 4 58.EW 1-O W NOK EUR USD USD 6 0. 6 46 3 70 9 27 9 4.0.2 1 .3 93.6 1 2.36 2.6 1 29.133 59 8 50 5 583 684 272 685 NM 1.00 58 4.0. 06 0. 233.0 -11 .1 141 .01 -1 9. 047 147 6 70 9 49 2 50 5 28 2 57 8 NM 1 . 0 109 . 156 83 2 7. 55 . 4 1.5 199 .6 4 0.8 1. 91 1.10 1 .09 0.4 3 .1 32 .29 1 .9 5.5 173 . 252 30 580 218 20 335 262 496 259 1.5 575 . 197. 259 65 6 26 4 34 5 50 0 49 1 31 7 1 .59 .0.09 .00 7 9.121 1 . 0 76 42 7 1.4 7 0.8 4 3.2 5 .0 0 0.0 0 0.00 3 .0 28 . 80 .2 6 NM 2.99 -41 .79 2 . 4 11.2 0 . 10 5.2 36. 929 120 1 149 508 373 120 169 339 3 323 374 198 2.08 2 9. 0 35.6 2 0. 005 67 0 12 .2 81 .1 7 97.7 2 51. 0 26 . Barcla ys Cap t al est m ate s i i Source: First Call.76 .14 6 .EW 2.2 4 0. 361 218 2.510 4 .6 617 .2 2 0.9 -50 .8 .0.1. 47 11 .16 NM -4 0.84 9 .98 7 .4 292 .3 2 .254 21 4 1 .5 4 90.0. 206 1.6 6 3.6 3 .0. 292 12 1 33 7 45 0.0.12. 643 2.1 9 0.3 182 . 4 47.8 .38 Me an Me dia n 11 2 22 5 65 43 0 22 8 25 2 27 4 14 3 22 50 18 0 18 4 256 898 112 2.3 1 2. 4 47.2 623 .3 9 13 36 12 52 30 0 13 71 24 1 116 NM 411 0 6 107 6 30 157 NM 2 523 2 254 593 157 . 14 .0.3.4 2 0.3 34.2 8 0. 212 3. 57 2.EW 1-O W 2. 074 132 1.EW 1-O W 1-O W NR 2.0 38 .8 6 .EW 3-UW NR NR 2. 71 .3 46. 71 2.92 9 .EW USD EUR EUR SWF USD EUR EUR SWF 7 .2 9 0.79 4 3.0 7 .21 .4 8. 274 1.5 48 .4 9 1.60 2 .5 3 4.8 -31 . 34 3.60 0.20 3 .8 2 M od ule Ma nu fac turers a leo so lar Ca nadia n Solar Sola r-F abr ik Sola rfun Sola rtr on Solo n AG B189 YN CSI Q 739 438 SOL F B06XP07 745 0738 NR 3-UW NR 3-UW NR 3-UW EUR USD EUR USD T HB EUR 5 .

x 1 3.2 x 1.8 x . Sola rW or ld AG . 2009 243 Solar Energy Handbook Source: First Call.6x 1.x S olar Cell 1 Solar Universe .3 x . Ro th & Ra u.9x 1.2x Syst em Integrators 3 V ert icall y 4 I ntegrat ed P oly/ Wafer 5 Solar E quipm ent 6 Com posit e Solar Cell 1 Modul e 2 System 3 Int egrators Vertically Integrated 4 Poly/Wafer 5 Solar E quipment Composit e 6 (1 ) So lar Ce ll co mp osit e in clud es : Ch ina Sun er gy. CSI. Solar fu n.x .4 x 1. JA So lar. MEMC. Barcla ys Capital estimates . Q. Su nte ch (2 ) Mo dule co mp os ite inclu de s: a leo so lar . Fir st Sola r.Ce lls. Ever gr ee n Solar .2008 price to sales 2.x M odule 2 .2x .2x . BTU In ter na tio nal.3x 10.2x 12.4 x .Fa br ik.6 x 1. Su nPo wer .x .4x 10x 6x 4x 2x 5x x Solar Cell 1 Module 2 Syst em 3 Integrators Vertically Integrated 4 Poly/Waf er 5 Solar Equipm ent Composite 6 x S ol ar Cell 1 Module 2 Syst em 3 Int egrators Vertically 4 Integrated P ol y/ Waf er 5 S ol ar Equipment 6 Composi te E xhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Solar Universe .5x 20x 17.2x 1 2. Con er gy.To kuya ma.5x . Ene rg y Co nv er sion De vice s.3x 14.8x 1 . Sola rs tro n n d Sun ways AG (4 ) Ve rt ically Int eg rat ed co mp osit e in clud es : REC. Su mc o.2 x .Figure 267: Barclays Capital Global Solar Comparable Valuation Charts as of 4/20/2009 Solar Universe .x 1. E.2008 price to earnings 25x 21 . company reports.To n. Oe rlik on .x 13.4x 11.4x 1.9x 1.6x Solar Universe . Mote ch. To pco Scien tific an d W ack er Ch emie (6 ) So lar Equ ipmen t C ompo site : inc lud es: GT So lar . Trin a So lar a nd Ying li Gr ee n Ene rgy (5 ) Po ly/W afe r c ompo site inc lude s: LDK Solar . Solo n AG (3 ) Sy ste m I nte gr ato rs comp osite in clud es: Ca rman ah Te ch no logie s. Man z Auto matio n. Sin o.5x 2 .6x 15x 8. R en eSo la. Sola r.2009 price to sales 1.6 x .1x . Spir e. C etr ot her m.6x 9. Solar tr on .4 x .2x 1. Meye r Bu rg er May 01. Cen tro so lar AG.5x 1 . Er Sol So lar .2009 price to earnings 16x 14x 12x 10x 8x 7.Ame ric an Silicon .

CSUN JAS O T SL ENER FSLR E SLR WFR STP YGE LDK 244 Solar Energy Handbook Figure 268: Barclays Capital Absolute Price Performance – U.87% -90% -100% -60% Source: FactSet .last month 25% + 31% 30% 25% 10% 20% 15% + 14% + 14% + 13% + 13% 5% + 12% + 12% 0% 20% 15% + 11% + 22% May 01.47% 0% ST P Y GE S PWR SOLF JA SO CS IQ FS LR WFR ES LR ENER CS UN LDK TSL .S OLF CSI Q S PWR + 10% + 9% + 8% + 7% + 6% + 5% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% -15% .74% .13% -20% .68% .18% -70% -80% . Last mo nth refers to 4 weeks th ending 4/24/09 Quar ter refers to 12 weeks ending April 24 2009.70% . Last week refers to the 7 da ys ending 4/30/09.last t welve mont hs 0% ENER FSLR CSUN ESLR STP YGE SOLF LDK CSIQ -10% SPWR JASO TSL WFR 60% + 51% + 32% + 17% + 13% -20% -30% -40% + 11% + 8% + 1% 40% 20% -50% -60% .13% .last week Price performance .13% .69% .1% .71% -40% . Note in the last week/month/quarter/12 months. the N ASDAQ Composite has cha nged by +3.21% . 2009 35% + 10% + 9% + 7% + 6% + 3% . Solar Energy as of 4/20/2009 Price performance . 4%.22% FSL R ESL R C SU N ENER TSL STP YGE L DK JASO SPWR SOLF CSIQ WFR -20% -25% Exhibit 12 E xhibit 11 Price performance .47% .6% .5%/-29.8%/13.last quarter 80% + 72% Price performance .76% .38% .67% .S.68% .76% .78% .18% .9%/+10.31% . Last 12 Months refers to the period ending April 24th 2009.

Solar Energy Handbook Chapter 13: Earnings Models May 01. 2009 245 .

3 60.0 4. 5 $ 0.47 -14% -15.8 52.8 43.9% $ $ $ $ $ $ 1.02 6.91 $ 1. 1 49. 0 103.1 0.20 € 1. 0 58. 7 53.15 -14% 25.0 3.0 337.4 51.5 125. 0 0.3 237. 1 9. 55 $ -19% 1.3 53.8 45.9% 1. 50 $ 1392. 1 45.8 915.83 0.7 8% 76 11. 8 15% 35.50 1.9 148. 5 610. 0 4. 2 204. 7% 667.0 11.0 62.0 0.0% 62.0% 2.8 0. 672 3.0 0.0 94% 138% 43. 0 3.09 90.0 1. 9 267.2 153. 0 267. 38 $ 148.67 -13% -8.0 4. 0 0.1 143.30 $ 2.0% 2.0 2704.0 48. 6 32% 87. 2 37.3 77 11. 8 23. 3 49. 7 210.81 $ $ $ $ 0. 37 -17.34 -18% 25.0 3. 0 0. 023 3. 4% 11. 40 -17% 5.3 0. 1 48. 1 1. 30 2. 1% 1. 5 72 72 10.0 $ 1. 0 0. 5 0.7 1% 87. 0% 56. 0 4.0 6. 20 € 1.0 0.8 341. 2 972. 0 0. 7 52.0 0. 10 0.1 $ 1351. 7% 48. 0 0. 7 49.0 907.503 705.0 0.5% 100.1 137.7 389. 0 232.0 502.5 49% 350.6 43. 83 $ $ $ $ 0.0 4.0 8.2 # 845.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 269: FSLR Earnings Drivers FYE: December Q1 Fi scal 2008 Q2 Q3 Q4 Fiscal 2008 Q1E Fi scal 2009E Q2E Q3E Q4E Fi scal 2009E Q1E Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E Q4E Fi scal 2010E Annual Capaci ty (MW) Qu arterl y Capacity (M W) Number of Li nes Ohio Germany M al aysia New Location 1 New Location 2 New Location 3 New Location 4 Annual Nameplat e Capaci ty per Line Ohio Germany M al aysia New Location 1 New Location 2 New Location 3 New Location 4 To tal Produ cti on (M W) Ohio Germany M al aysia New Location 1 New Location 2 New Location 3 New Location 4 To tal Compon ent Ship ments (M W) M odul e ASPs ($/W) Y/Y (%) Exchange Rate (Euros/ $) M odul e ASPs (Euros/ W) System Shi pmen ts (MW) System ASPs ($/ W) $ $ 318. 0 52.39 -18% 10. 0 16. 0 79. 02 6.736 3. 0 246% 0.0 0.8 522.0 0. 0 $ 456.02 0.3 60. 36 € 1.22 -11% 25. 3% 806.6 NA NA NA 501. 0 0.6 62.3 56.6 13% Source: Company reports.3 0. 0 0.30 $ 2.0 1211.5 Tot al Cost/ Wat t Stock based com p ($/ W) Act ual st ock based comp ($.0 53.3 56.0% 11.0 $ 0.0 49.4 49.20 € 1.0 0. 0 0. 0 48. 93 $1. M) Overal l Gross M argi n Wat ts per module Conversion ef ficiency (%) # modules per product ion l ine Q/ Q (%) Nameplate cap aci ty per li ne (M W) $ $ $ $ $ $ 1.5 693.8 49. 0 4.0 0. 2 548. 1 24. 0 3. 0 45. 0 435.5 $ 0.18 0. 0 10.8 NA NA NA NA 137. 0 411. 0 0.5 348.0 0.02 $ 4.0 4.8 54.0 218.3 76 77 11.4 23.0 0.4 488. 02 4.87 $ 1.46 $ 1.7 218. 0% 49. 2009 . 8 1257. 0 348.20 € 1.4% $ 1.0 0.0 0. M) 196. M) Ramp Im pact ($/W ) Act ual ram p cost s ($.7 191.6 62. 0 49. 8% 50. 85 $ 0.90 $ 1.14 0.0 4.5 780.0 4.59 $ 2.5 108. 0 0. 2 17. 51 € 1.0 0.0 3. 0 0.0 28. 00 1.00 1.0 4.0 0.94 $ 0.5 0.9 57. 0 $ 4.0 0. 4% 763. 0 0.5 480.30 $ 2. 333 719.0 0.8 262. 14 $2.7 22. 0 48.944 691.0 3. 0 0.2 77% 87.0 0. 0 347. 30 $ 2.7 54. 70 -7% 0. 53 € 1. 1 616.0 0.03 2.0 3.0 16.85 $ $ 1.5 0.0 0.4 501. 3% 741. 02 -13% 3.5 1758.23 -10. 0 90. 0 211.8 49. M) Y/Y (%) System Revenues ($.0 0.1 1609.31 € 1.0 54% 87.5 0. 0 206. 2% 199.M) Underl ying Cost/Watt BoS Cost/Watt System Cost/ Watt Cost o f Reven ues ($.M ) Component s Gross M argin (%) System Costs ($.00 1.5 703. 7 NA NA NA NA 302.0 0. 48 € 1. 01 -19% 1.7 1246. 0 0.8 49. 0% $ $ $ $ $ $ 0. 0 0.4 36.0 54.0 3. 0 NA NA NA 348. 7 54.0 431.5 0. 03 4. 6 34. 0 0.0 0. 30 $ $ 2.0 1609. 0 47.0 0. 5 45.5 0.78 $ 0.0 0.0 137.3 # 391. 7 52.1 60. 30 $ 2.4 13. 0 0. 2 43.0% 3. 0 0. 60 $ 1.0 0.9 1.6 152.8 45.0 0.0 € 1. 5 3.2 51.0 51. 5 52.02 4.0 16.3 NA NA NA NA 157. 85 0. 651 -4.440 2. 00 $ 2. 7 124.0 0.0 16.0 1071.13 $ 288. 7 0. 0 0.82 $ 1. 1% 20. 0 $ 3. M) To tal Revenues ($.0 0. 28 178. 1 NA NA NA NA 114. 25 -10% 25.7% 10.7 NA NA NA NA 314. 4% 0.0 4.0 0.76 $ 1. 642 692.5 0.6 62.3 949.7 539.3 48.6% 637.3 72. 151 3. 6 11.1 32.3 0.0 182.90 $ 0.0 56. 1 30.1 522. 86 -16% 1.0 0. 9% 1308.3 48% 35. 81 0.0 54. 50 $ 2004.50 1. 8 392.3 433.0 422. 7 NA NA NA NA 211. 0% 1.3 60. 0 0.2% $ 0.6 250. 15 $ 287. 0 58. 8 54.0 185.8 394.0 245.8 52. 0 0.5 0. 0 1.0 0. 00 1. 0 0. 3% 677.00 1.2 52.9 24. 79 $ $ $ $ 0.9 52.9 1201.0 0.8 337. 3 0.3 49.5 156. 11 $ 341. 0 0.0 4.9% 11. 2 302.9 0.06 6. 3 342.2 208.0 0. 1 36.0 0.50 $ -17% 1. 5 NA NA NA NA 79. 04 6.0 0.0 629. 43 -18% 0% 1. 1 58.3 400. 0 0. 0 237. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 7 49. 9 194% 0. 7 229.69 $ -23% -30% -33% 1.62 € 1.7% 3.0 0. 5 0.0 218. 0 4. 68 -7% 0. 9 53.38 $ 1. 00 Compon ent Revenues ($.1 243. 28 € 1.5 $ 0. 5 114.0 16. 29 -8% 25.0 0.0 38.0 0.0 4. 5 45. 0 0.7 54. 5 99% 20.0 60.17 $ 207.7 2354. 46 $ -13% 1. 50 1.0 37. 254 786. 0 0. 8 0.7 0.5% 809. 0 196.5 610.2 1581. 0 0. 3 21.2 51.24 193.3 60. 8 50.0% 45.3% 0. 8% 664. 5 $ 0. 0 0.3 71 10.8 1520. 1% 73 10.4% 54.0 0.0 0.0 $ 3. 6 2.0 0.3% $ 0. 68 -6% 0.87 $ $ 0. 0 2. 0 60.8 211.0 0. 5 0.0 0.9 56. 0 0.0 0. 5 $ 0.50 $ 1687.0 44. 0% 58.2 707. 36 -19% 10.0 0. 0 58. 0 $ 0.8 7% 73 74 75 76 10.6 34% 87. 3 79.3 48. 03 6. 7 51.82 -8% 0.7 49.5 0. 3 348. 20 € 1. 6 7. 6 0.0 0. 53 $ 9% 2% 1.0 19.3 32% 177.08 390. 0 58.1 237. 0 3.0 442. 1 0.0 0. 0 3.6 44.1 62.5 0. Barclays Capital estimates 246 May 01.4 $ 4.9% 1.0% 2.0 4.0 0. 0% 55. 0 4.20 196.3 NA NA NA 422. 98 $1. 0 0.0 0. 1 48. 30 2. 0 121.0 12. 24 € 1. 0 58. 0 16.0 0.0 0.3 241.6 0.2 $ 0.0 0. 0 1.0 0. 0 0.0 4.4 41. 83 $ 0.09 121. 345 4. 4 1.9 422.2 NA NA NA NA 243. 0% 48.3 56.50 $ 1.2 118% 1. 08 $ 0. 0 0.01 2.0 4. 0 0. 03 -9% 1.0 1.6 157.0 3.0 60. 89 0.3% 11. 15 209.1 2.8 0. M) Syst em s Gross Margin (%) To tal Costs ($.01 1. 0 0. 75 -25% -28.6 62. 0 0.0 0.0 501.0 0.01 6.3 225.01 $ 1.7 314.30 $ $ 2.30 2.2 48.1% 11.3 NA NA NA 337.20 € 1. 8 39.4% 0. 02 6. 0 4. 5 0.03 2. 01 $ $ $ $ $ 1.03 3.3 56.0 $ 3.47 $ 7% 1. 5 396.32 1.80 -8% 1.

0 $0.0 $0. 7 $233.9% 14. 5% 25.0% 62.4% 30.52 $1. 2% 37.0% 8.5% 12. 2% 30.8% 119. 1 85. 8% 10.6% $910. 6% 22.1% $762.9% $52.5% $30.3 16. 3 88. Product ion St art-up Operating Expenses Operating Income N on operati ng (i ncom e) expense: Foreign currenc y gain (loss ) Int eres t inc ome (expense) Other inc ome (expense) Q1 $196. 6 $309.9 $62.4 81.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 270: FSLR Income Statement FYE: D ecember R evenue QoQ YoY C os t of Goods Gross Profit R &D Selling. 5 8.3% 12.8% $47.7 29.1 85.9% ($500.5 $1.0% $499.6% 33.7 Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E $184.0% 15. 2% 26.0 $348.0% $103.6 $61. 6 $49.52 $1.2% $687.00 39% 85.3 FY 2009E $1.3% 9.7 $7. 1% 2.7 $12.47 ($3.7 27. 0 $8.87 $1.4 $775. 5 $62. 2 $245.0% 2.8 41. 9 $11.5 $2. 1 $33.2% 28.2 $58.6% 27. 0 $0. 0 $5.4 4.1% 35. 1% 37.7 378.8% 2.4 $8.9 $22.9% 10. 9% 45. 3 Q1E $411.9 $81.0) FYE: D ecember Pro Forma E BITD A % Change Y/Y % Change Q/ Q % Sales LTM EB ITDA C apital S pending % of Sal es D epreci ation % of COGs FCF Ops E st. 0% 2.8 $217. 2 $2. 8% $35.0 8.97 $5. 0) $201.8% 2. 12 $2. 5 $58.9 $325.6% 10. 1 $125.1 ($8.8 $0.0 $0.0 N on operati ng (i ncom e) expense Income (loss) before taxes Income Tax Expense N et Income (loss) Basic income (los s) per s hare D ilut ed income (los s) per s hare from Operations (i) Year-ov er-Year (%) W ei ghted average s hares used Avg Shares . 4% $342.6% 25.3 $130. 6 $38. 3 18. 4% 2008 Q3 $147.6 $161.4 82.1 85.6 $329.6 $125.4 11. 8% Fiscal Q2 $102.0 20.4% 2.0% 39.5% $193. 5 39.7% 29.2 584.1 $438.2 $69.7 11.9 53.7% $45.1 $52.8 $132.4% 2.6% 12.8% 49.50 ($3. 0% 28.4) $135.0% $88.1 51.8 $6.6% 13.9 $137.0% 35.6 $394. 9% 2.8% 41. 0 18.2 $18.6 $1.3 88. 0 $0.0% 54.3 $81.7 $43.2% 17. 5% 54.3% $122. 0) $180.2 $3.3% 23. 5 21. 0 $0.1 27.1 $11.5% 8.1 751.4% 14.8% 23.9) $5.9% 2.8 $28. 8% FY 2009E $728. 0% 43.0 Q1E $174.5% $135. 20 ($10.3% 29.7% 26. 1) $65. 9 11. 5 0.3% 12.4 $12. 63 $1.4 $33. 3% 41.3% 12. 0% $9. (C FO-Capex) Q1 $68. 9% 14.8% $119.4 $4. 4 $20.9 37. 6 $200.5% -22.9% 24.520. 3 $1.3 $129.0 18.7 $11.48 $1.1% 10.0) $177.84 ($3.5 $177.0% 47. 3 $195.3% $341.0% 43.2 82.0 $0.0% 2.0 $0.1 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 $267.3 $78.1% 31.4 $174.9% $96.4% 28.3 $3. Barclays Capital estimates May 01.0 $1. 1 53.7 48. 1 $535. 0 $115.0 $6.1% $92.81 ($1.8% $1. 8% 33.5 $0.0% FY 2010E $910.8 11.2% 27.2% 28.1% 41. 6) $141.3% 34.7 $12.5 $160.3 $65.6% $442. 3 $843. 0 $75.9) $133.8 87.6 $1. 4% $16. 1% 25. 0 59. 6 $137.0 $15.38 ($3. 6 $3. 5 82.0% $204.2 ($0.8 $16.5 $63. 0 $0. 0 $1.6 80.9% $65.0% 45. 0 $91.0% $90.0% $218. 6 79.0% 44. 6% 41.9 $678.9) $1.1 $703.183.6 $46.5% 14.4 155. 0 $3.5 Q4E $190. 0 $0.0% 48.6 $56.36 $2. 0 $79.0 $88.5 53.2 8.2 $0. 7% 2.2% 11.2% 10.8 10.8% 6. 8 $81. 7% $20.4% 728.9% FY 2008 $499.8% 34. 3% 28. 0 $308.8 $1. 5 $240.0 $206.4) $140.8% -4.6 $4. 06 ($1.0 $108. 4% $10. 6% 50.8 $17. 0% 42. 4 FY 2010E $2.9% -2665.4 $348. 0% 58. 7 24.4 $125.24 203% 80.0% $199.4 $201. 4 11.2 $84. 1 202% 40.4% -131.3 $144. 4% 116.0 $8.4% 31. 5% 23.1) $93.7% $0. 3% 33.2% 27. 7 ($0.4 Q4 $181.7 Q4E $480. 9 -2.0% 61.2% 33.0% $39.2% 5.5 -5. 1 85. 5% $783. 1 $1.3 84. 1 167.0% $60.0% 194.7 $153.7 $8. 8% 14.1 $131.1 $13.1% $286.1 $235. 3 18.8% 28.1 19.0% 42.2 10. 0 $0.8 $337. 5 $129. 1% -1.0 $75.3 147. 85 ($2. 6 $500.2% 31.6 $104.3 88.7 $720. 6) 56.0 $0.3 88. 8% 13.3 $705. 7% 14. 7 35. 6% 30.26 $8.4 $3. 57 ($5.4) $463. 2 $48.0% 43.3 11.5 $1.6 $17.5 $78.6 $0.5% $30.0 $77.5% 61. 1 85.4 $16. 8 $1.5 $1.9 FY 2008 $1.7 $500.8 4. 0 $93. General & Admin. 0 $14. 9 301. 1 $128.4% $605. 3 88.9 11. 6% 42.9% $74. 87 $0.1 $8.1 10.0 80. 1 81.1% $915.2 Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E $431.3 $4. 0 $3. 4 $101.7% 12.7 $20.5 $121. 0 $0.5 Fi scal 2010E Q2E Q3E $205.9% 2.0 $269. 0) $223.1 Q4E $261.3 $435.7 $115.0% $3. 4) $0.704. 0 $0.6 Q1E $208. 7 105.7% 910.1 $181.6% $728. 7 $95.90 $1.0 $408.9% 30.0 20. 5 11.7 $0.8 $8.9 $1. 2% $405. 9% $77.3) $171.8 $99.4) ($1.75 36% 83. 6% $223.5% 28. 3 $4.6 $1.34 $4.0 $77.9% 44.40 ($3.2% 10. 5 8. 3 82. 0% $35.5 $6.0 $32.8 $72.7 $212. 1 79.1 $0. 4% 14. 7 43. 9% $499.3% $567. 3 88.8 $159.1 $14.0 $0.9 $24.8 $206. 0% ($121. 2 Q4 $433. 9% $13. 7% 28. 246.0 $0.0% 49.8% 28. 2% 57.8 $46.3 19. 4 $3. 5% 25. 758. 0 $0.0 $229. 9 $123. 5 $174.7 ($0.4) $6.8% 10. 6 $5.6% 22. 9% 43. 6% 29. 9% 16.8 $12.9 ($0. 23 $1. 3 88. 8% 1.1 $485.9% 14.1 $162.6 Fi scal 2010E Q2E Q3E $610.7% $262.1% 30.7 $125. 8% 38.6% 11.5 $179.1% 109.5 $0.1 84. 61 ($3.5% 25.Ful ly Di luted (M) Percent of Sales Gross Margin Incremental Gros s M argin R &D SG&A Operat ing I nc ome N et Income Tax R at e ($7.9 5% $125.6% $47.0 $222.6 $18.0 16.1 ($13.2 $89.5 Q1E $610.0 $49.9 82. 6% 245. 4% 33. 0 $16. 1% 62.2 $839. 3 88.7) $549. 2% $313.9% 2.3 $81.3) $132. 3% 2. 8% -2.0 83. 4 Q4E $780. 2009 247 .2 $268.7 $12.0 17.4 11. 59 $0.1% 26.29 ($25.6 $4.3% 37. 4 $10.44 $1.4 Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports. 6% 2.2 8. 0 $0.6% 26. 0) $783.

56 3. 204 3.3 0% $0.450. 0 41 0.7% 20. Barclays Capital estimates 248 May 01.098 -----------$2. 34 $7.84 $15.7 ====== $93. 8% 4. 2009 .0 ====== $93.0 ====== $93.9 7.99 3.371 -----------$2. 385 -----------$1.752 -----------$2.2 13.137.069 $15 $124 $1. 4% 4.583.8 $1.68 $6.8 $993 3.6 $674 $30 $132 $582 $133 $41 12% $126 36% $79 $962.7% $24.3% 3. 8 42 0.762 -----------$1.8% 47.61 $7.336 -----------$2.9 $1. 72 $6.1 $1.7% 8.95 14 9.8 $701 10.5 $894 4.675 -----------$1. net % Sales Invent or ies % Sales Other curr ent as sets Total C urrent A sset s Net PP&E Rest ric ted investment s Other non-c ur rent assets Q1 Q2 Fiscal 2 008 Q3 Q4 Q 1E Fiscal 20 09E Q 2E Q 3E Q 4E Q1E Fiscal 201 0E Q 2E Q 3E Q4E $591 $90 $18 9% $59 30% $41 $798.2% 9.258.2 . 4 $1.3 58 0.680 2.81 14 8.25 2.1% $22.78 14 8. 0 2. 4% 5.675 -----------$1.84 Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports. 0 ====== $93. 4 3.222 -----------$2. 97 14 9.2) ====== $93.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 271: FSLR Balance Sheet FYE: December BAL ANCE S HE ET Asset s Current Asset s: Cash and c as h equivalent s Shor t.077. 24 $11.16 $21.3 0% $0. 212 ====== Total Debt % Change Q/Q $ C hange $70.9 136.term investment s Ac counts receivable.52 3.240 $0 $106 15% $176 25% $62 $1.6 55% $38.84 $11.8 30% $32.0 ====== $93.965 -----------$2. 9% 3. 0% 5.36 $30. Cash B ook & Cash Value Book Value Per Shar e C ash Per Shar e N et Cash Per Share Tangible Book value 16% 14% 13% 23% 24% 22% 19% 17% 27% 26% 29% 21% 21% 35% 28% 35% 24% 25% 40% 31% 31% 27% 26% 40% 31% 28% 28% 24% 38% 29% 26% 28% 22% 37% 28% 26% 26% 22% 38% 27% 30% 26% 25% 43% 27% 27% 25% 23% 40% 26% 29% 26% 24% 42% 26% 30% 27% 25% 44% 26% 0. 1 $879 $15 $124 $812 $0 $65 15% $108 25% $62 $1. 69 3. 7% 235.144 $0 $92 15% $153 25% $62 $1.3 0% $0.4 4.84 3.92 $26.1% 10.4 ====== $140. 7 .37 $10.1 3. 69 $12. 75 11 4.0 ====== $93.2% 4.9 32. 5 16% $22.752 -----------$2.63 $18.9 75 0.Capex/I nt erest Op Inc / Ass ets .3 -43% ($70.Ter m Debt Cur rent por tion of LT debt Accounts payable Note Pay able to Relat ed Part y Other c ur rent liabi lities Total C urrent Liabili ti es: Ac crued r ecyc ling L-Term D ebt Other non-c ur rent liabilit ies Total Liabili ti es Employee s tock options on r edeemable shares ====== $0 $18 $167 85% $0 $43 $228 $18 $70 $10 $326 $0 ====== $0 $25 $42 16% $0 $212 $279 $24 $109 $13 $425 $0 ====== $0 $27 $37 11% $0 $234 $298 $28 $141 $8 $475 $0 ====== $0 $35 $46 11% $0 $301 $382 $35 $164 $21 $601 $0 ====== $24 $15 $185 45% $0 $15 $239 $13 $69 $6 $327 $0 ====== $24 $15 $194 45% $0 $15 $248 $13 $69 $6 $336 $0 ====== $24 $15 $196 45% $0 $15 $250 $13 $69 $6 $338 $0 ====== $24 $15 $216 45% $0 $15 $270 $13 $69 $6 $358 $0 ====== $24 $15 $275 45% $0 $15 $329 $13 $69 $6 $416 $0 ====== $24 $15 $275 45% $0 $15 $329 $13 $69 $6 $416 $0 ====== $24 $15 $317 45% $0 $15 $371 $13 $69 $6 $458 $0 ====== $24 $15 $351 45% $0 $15 $405 $13 $69 $6 $493 $0 % sal es Sharehol ders' Equit y Total Li abil it ies & Sharehol ders' Equity -----------$1.59 $7.0% $21.5% 3. & SHRHL DRS' EQUIT Y S. 1 $1.4 26.2 $1. 212 LI AB.477 -----------$1.94 14 9.3 0% $0.0% $30.6 80 0.97 $16.21 $9.163 $15 $124 $1.4 $750 $30 $117 $716 $76 $62 14% $122 28% $102 $1. 9% 5.7% 6.1% 4. 083 3.1% 5. 359 $0 $117 15% $195 25% $62 $1.151 -----------$1. 1 45 0. 0 41 0.3% $14. 0% 68.4 10.84 14 8.1 31.0 $1. 860 -----------$2.07 $13. 0 46 0.5% $28. 6 $602 8.89 14 9.517 -----------$2. 860 -----------$2. 7% 3.2% $18.0 41 0.884 -----------$2. 2 $738 6.3 $529 $27 $122 $511 $122 $50 19% $107 40% $49 $838. 339 $15 $124 Total A sset s -----------$1.82 14 8.975 -----------$3.8% 9. 6% 63.0 2.3 3. 5 $974 $15 $124 $1.1 10. 7% 5. 1 $946 $15 $124 $1.4 10.7 10.639 -----------$1.251 -----------$1.11 $8. 8% 10.3 0% $0.9 3. 7% 4.004 $0 $72 15% $120 25% $62 $1.477 -----------$1.2% 28. 6% 3.331 3. 396 2.33 $22. 4% 4.42 $14. 3% 61. 734.37 3.385.046.5 3.0 ====== $93.35 $9.9% $26. 40 $15.5 36. 6 55 0.4% $19.5 110.079 $0 $92 15% $153 25% $62 $1.3 0% $0.25% ( $23.5 $742 10.21 $8.8 10.3 0% $0.5 3.8 12.8 $1.9 11.11 2.253 $15 $124 $1.9 12. 719 -----------$1.4% $16. 2 -4. 2% 5.592 -----------$2.8 $1.115 -----------$1.3% 69.0 P erformance Metrics Profi tabili ty Ratios R etur n On Equity R etur n on Avg Equit y R etur n On Ass ets R etur n On Net As sets R etur n On Sales Ef fi ci ency Rat ios Sales / Total As sets A/ R D ays Sales Out I nventor y Turns D ays of Inventor y Liquidit y Rat ios C ur rent Ratio Quic k R at io N et Work ing C apital ( $M) Long-Ter m Debt / Equity D ebt/C apital Total Debt / E quity EB ITDA/ Interest EB ITDA.1 40 2.4 27.11.4% 261.8 2.98 $11.5% $15.5 3.222 -----------$2. 530 2.25 $7.7% $19.176 -----------$2.50 3. 4 43 0.01 $28. 80 1.99 $9. 18 $24. 7% 58.53 8 6.3 9.592 -----------$2.965 -----------$2.7 8.5 4.35 2. 48 $14.115 -----------$1.39 $10.0% 8.5 11.15 $19.4 $843 $30 $164 $721 $0 $62 15% $103 25% $62 $948.64 17 4.48 $19.1) ====== $108.014 -----------$2.098 -----------$2. 80 $8.52 $8.8 $912 $15 $124 $900 $0 $65 15% $109 25% $62 $1.82 13 6.371 -----------$2.8 $1.975 -----------$3.56 $14.7 11.2% 10.513 -----------$1. exc.2 ====== $163.50 $12.5 34. 0% 59.

0 0. 5 156. 6 13. 0 40.0 3.0 80% 106.5 654.0 133. 0 0.0 143.6 13.0 1.0 33.0 33. 52 $ -23% 2.0 40.0 2. 0 40.0 6.0 80% 49.8 7. 0 40. 70 $ 0% 4.0 40. 82 $ -20% 2. 0 0.65 $ -18% 5. 2 60.0 0. 3 17. 30 $ -20% 2. 0 6. 0 40.5 574.0 40.0 3.2 37. 5 38.0 25. 3 26.0 80% 49. 0 80% 108.0 24.69 $ -14% 4.5 494.0 33.08 $ -12% 2. 2009 249 .7 3.0 8. 00 -6% $ 4.8 15.0 2.3 52. 0 0.27 $ 1% 3.0 2.0 33.0 25.0 1. 5 47.5 534. 0 33.4 52.0 1. 0 416. 31 $ 3% 3.0 40.0 40.5 38.62 $ -8% 3.0 1.0 63. 8 15.0 163.0 80% 46. 8 7.0 80% 98.6 48.0 411. 0 95% 174.0 4. 7 9.0 32.2 8. 0 80% 104. 2 24.0 5.0 Component ASPs ($/W) Y /Y (% ) Modu le ASPs ($/W) Y /Y (% ) S ystem ASPs ($/W) Y /Y (% ) $ 3.99 $ -6% 2.0 190.31 $ 3% 7.8 7.0 25.5 38.0 1. 9 243. 0 38.8 44.0 0.0 25.06 $ -5% 6. 31 $ 3% 7.0 24.8 116.0 40.0 1. 5 38.0 4.0 40. 0 40. 0 33. 5 9.8 184. 5 254.0 5. 6 13.0 2.8 15.0 0.0 0.0 33.09 $ $ 7.0 26.0 2.0 1.8 15. 8 7.5 414.7 18. 0 0.1 176.0 50.2 8.8 230.64 $ -13% 4.0 0.0 45. 0 38.0 4.0 1. 0 40. 0 2. 0 6.0 2.0 3.3 65.0 706.0 3. 0 0.1 27.0 97. 0 1. 85 $ -23% 5.7 3.0 5.0 40.65 $ -7% 4.4 14.6 80% 30.78 $ -21% 2.8 15. 0 33.70 $ -15% 6. 0 33. 5 774. 6 3.4 62.0 5.23 $ -25% 5.0 43. 0 33.6 13.0 40. 0 40.0 69.0 40. 91 $ -20% 3.0 3.0 1.0 33.0 95% 193.0 1.05 $ All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports. 62 -8% 5. 0 160.0 40. 0 1.0 33. 0 40.2 8.5 334.6 13.0 152.0 2.5 47.5 3.7 38.0 2.0 33. 0 40.42 $ -11% 2.0 0.3 17. 2 8.8 32. 7 9. 34 -7% 2.0 40.0 0. 0 3. 2 44.0 40.5 814. 0 0.2 8. 8 15. 45 $ -20% 5.0 6.0 132.0 33.0 40.0 2.0 3.0 33. 0 80% 42. 0 0.8 71. 0 2.0 80% 114.0 72.5 734.8 25.0 8.2 60.6 13.0 25.0 40.0 4.0 95% 155.0 33.0 0.6 60. 8 32.0 33.8 15. 0 40.0 1. 0 0.0 5. 0 80. 0 148.98 $ -3% 3.12 $ -23% 5.8 15.2 8. 0 0.0 19.0 40. 0 40.0 6.0 83. 0 1.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 272: SPWRA Earnings Drivers FY E: December Q1 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 Q4 Fiscal 2008E Q1E Fi scal 2009E Q2E Q3E Q4E Fiscal 2009E Q1E Fi scal 2010E Q2E Q3E Q4E Fi scal 2010E Annual Capaci ty (MW) Quarterl y Capaci ty (MW) Number of Lines Fab1 (lines 1-3) Fab1 (line 4) Fab2 (lines 5-6) Line 7 Line 8-12 Line 13-16 Line 17+ A nnual Nam eplate Capac ity per Line Fab1 (lines 1-3) Fab1 (line 4) Fab2 (lines 5-6) Line 7 Line 8-12 Line 13-16 Line 17+ Utili zation rate Total Producti on (MW) Fab1 (lines 1-3) Fab1 (line 4) Fab2 (lines 5-6) Line 7 Line 8-12 Line 13-16 Line 17+ Total Shipm ents (MW) I nt.0 2.0 0. 0 26.0 16. 5 454. 0 5. 0 40.7 9.2 20.0 0. 2 8. 0 0.5 47.35 $ -7% 2.0 33. 3 165.8 17. 0 47.0 40.0 25.0 25. 0 40. 0 103. 0 3.0 159.0 6.8 15.0 33.0 33.5 50% 25. 0 0. 0 302. 48 $ -28% 5.8 15.5 600. 0 82.0 5.0 1.0 40.88 $ -8% 2. 0 1.0 1.0 0. 0 1.0 0.0 40.0 80% 112.0 40.3 31.0 5.71 $ -23% 3.0 40.0 6. 9 126.53 $ -8% 4. 0 80% 82.0 1.0 40.0 6.0 40.38 $ -14% 2.3 48. 0 25. 0 4.0 80% 50.0 123. 0 53.0 40. 0 33.0 40. 0 0.0 40.0 3. 0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 80% 66. 0 4.0 1.73 $ -23% 3.0 80% 92.0 80% 90.0 33.0 0.0 1.0 203.2 25.0 0.0 40.0 5.0 25. 0 183. 3 38% 29.0 2.27 $ -9% 3.77 $ -25% 3.0 40.5 19.31 $ -24% 2.0 6. 5 80% 61.5 47. 6 3. Barclays Capital estimates May 01. 0 5.0 161.0 90. 2 55. 21 $ -24% 2.0 0.8 55. 0 33. 0 0.2 8.8 15.53 $ 2. 0 1.0 193.0 0.0 40. 0 25.0 25.3 60. 0 25.0 0.7 9.0 0.5 68.0 57.0 1.0 164.0 1.0 63.0 228. 8 21. 4 52.0 40.0 40.0 0. Shi p to S ystem s (M W) % of int ernal modules Components Shi pments (M W) S ystem s Shi pments (MW) 214.16 $ -23% 5.0 0.6 13. 0 2. 8 15.0 40. 06 $ -13% 2.0 1.3 17.4 70% 44.55 $ -21% 2.0 113.6 13. 0 95% 183.0 1. 0 33.0 40.

08 5. 05 13% 5. 9 94.7 146.4 162. 81 $ $ $ 1.1 544.2 0.0 112. 0 20. 81 5.3 184.16 $ 1.0 205.45 1. 9 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 382. 0 177.0 $ 1. 0% 7.30 $ $ $ $ 2. 0% 15. 0 1.1 3.6% 34.0 165 $ 0. 6 372. 3 7.9 225.8% 21.1 364. 8 281.0% 15. 0% 15.0 125.56 1.4 126. 45 $ 5.0 $ 1. 9 83.3% 3.1 21. 7 458.10 $ 20 60 3.2 635. 00 $ 27.15 1.2 403.8 148.07 1. 97 1.1 7.3 7. 14 $ 1. 05 13% 5.15 $ 2. 35 $ 70 60 3.3 0. 81 5.05 13% 5.9% 22.9 127. 6 1038.61 $ $ $ $ 2.8 125. 00 $ 47.0% 15.9 975.0% 3.0% 15.3% 31.0 $ 1.8 99 $ 70 60 3. 19 13% 5.1 0.3 418.3 22. 81 5.9 263.03 1. 1 377.7% 34.5 3.3 7. 45 $ 5.10 $ 20 60 3.0 70.9 204. 0 $ 1. 3 0.2 93.5 42. 2 376.3 0. 99 0.07 $ 1.04 All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports.07 4.1 47.1 11. 0 279. 05 13% 5.9 208. 0% 12. 7 178.3 7.3 Q1 213.0% 15. 0 $ 1. poly to wafer cos t) Non-s ilicon c osts Combi ned Systems S ili co n Co sts Breakdown P ol y t o waf er process ing cos t per Watt Grams per Watt P ol y c ost s ($/k g) P oly to ingot costs ($/ W) I ngot pull ing cost s ($/ kg) # of waf ers per k g Watt s per waf er poly to ingot process ing cos ts I ngot to wafer costs ($/W) Wafering cos ts ($/ kg) # of waf ers per i ngot Watt s per waf er ingot t o waf er c ost s E fficiency & Watts per wafer E ffic iency (%) Watt s per waf er Grams per Watt Calculation poly consumed in c ells k erf loss poly required Non-si licon Costs ($/ W) Wafer proc ess ing cost s ($/ wafer) # of waf ers (million) Watt s per waf er Fix ed/ ov erhead cos ts ($.05 13% 5.0% 3. 00 34.9 820.5% 22.3 22.06 1.1 0. 2 137. 9 719. 7 3.05 13% 5. M) Non-s ilicon c osts ($/W) $ $ $ $ 3.39 $ $ $ $ 1.36 1.8 67. 48 $ 6.0% 13.8 122 $ $ 0.0% 3.81 5.04 $ 1.0 Q4E 443. 3 7. 11 $ 20 60 3.2 76.4 25.0% 11.00 58.7 Fi scal 2009E Q2E Q3E 280.5% 23.5 138.0 29.46 $ $ $ $ 2. 3 132. 8 3.8 18.2 0. 1% 22.35 $ 20 60 3.04 4.6 253.0% 3.3 22.3 43. 5% 15.8 106.8 270. 4 14.8 215.0 95.8 94. 16 1.0% 20.08 $ $ $ 1.45 $ 5.81 5. 0% 3. 0 236. 8 156 $ $ 0.8 84 $ 0.3% 15.6 97. 05 13% 5.3 3.0 281.8 104 $ 0.47 $ 6. 45 5. 1% Costs ($/W) I nternal Modules S ilicon c ost s (incl .1 161.4 Fi scal 2009E 2125. 2% 37. 1 Fiscal 2008 1434.9 99.44 1.6 267.6 614.3 5.04 4.8 155 $ 0.10 $ 20 60 3.3 0.0 $ 1.45 5.0% 16.5 245.4% 29.0% 15.98 1.0% 3.3 155. 29 5. 8 22. 3 0.24 $ $ $ $ 2.0 318.3 7.35 $ 70 60 3. 3 0. 0 0. 30 $ $ $ $ 2.00 $ 29.3 22.1 3.07 $ 1. 3 81.7 113.10 $ 20 60 3.81 5.3 0. 9 3.0% 10.0% 12.10 $ 20 60 3.35 $ 70 60 3.4 270.0% 10.2 25.8 158 $ 0.86 $ $ $ $ 2.3 0.16 5. 9 223. 2 24.8 1148.0% 15.2 22.78 $ $ $ $ 2.37 1. 2 138. 0 137. 0% 3.3 0.3 0.1 107.2 Q4 401.07 4.2 7.8 430.14 5.3 0. 3 0.45 5.7 254. 81 5. 94 1.9 89. 8 259.3 0. 0% 24.07 1.3 0. 35 $ 70 60 3.45 $ 5.5 193.7 144.3 7.6 103. 4 496.0% 19. 0 1. 4 860.4 136. 0% 15.9 291. 71 $ $ $ $ 2. 5 25.0% 3. 08 4.04 4. 06 $ $ $ 1.2% 20.10 20.35 $ 70 60 3. 2009 . 4 68.4% 3. 3 22.3 0. 4 3.45 $ 5.7 31.7 205. 2 193.45 $ 5. 8 3.0% 7.03 1. 3 22.0% 12. Barclays Capital estimates 250 May 01. 45 $ 2. 10 $ 20 60 3.0% 15. 05 13% 5.1 221 $ 0. 35 $ 70 60 3.1 26. 37 $ 70 60 3.6 90.0% 3. 10 $ 20 60 3.9% 22.3 316.2 54.09 1.35 $ 70 60 3.0% 7.9 354. 00 $ 16. 05 4. 0 Q1E 456.10 $ 20 60 3. 05 $ $ 0. 35 1.8 161 $ 0. 06 4.3 22.00 $ 52.6 Q4E 580. 8 99 $ 0.5 1741.44 1.00 $ 20. 3 237 $ 0.46 1.0% 11.5 1095.M) S ystem s Internal Modules Ext ernal Modules BoS Components Gross Margin I nt ernal Modules E xternal Modules B oS Combi ned Systems Q1 273.3 0.0% 22. 08 $ 1. 4 70.00 $ 32.8 3.81 5.5 93. 8% 3.0% 15.58 $ $ $ $ 2.00 $ 14. 6 143.0% 10.0% 15.9% 22. 6 46.39 1.0% 23. 6 248. M) Y /Y (% ) S ys tems Revenue Y /Y (% ) Components Rev enue Y /Y (% ) Cost of Revenues ($.9 299. 0 $ 1.6% 16. 43 1.11 $ 20 60 3.00 $ 55.1 121. 10 $ 20 60 3. 54 $ $ $ $ 2.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 273: SPWRA Earnings Drivers FY E: December Revenues ($.8 338. 22 1.9 976.9 25.3 266. 97 5.0 161.0 Fiscal 2009E 1356.12 $ 2.0% 14.49 $ 6.3 22. 6% 22.04 $ 1. 05 $ 1.0 1.05 13% 5.3 0. 8 44. 0 $ 1. 84 1. 4% 24.3 7.5 766. 0 0.0% 14. 0 7.3 7.10 $ 1.5 Fi scal 2010E Q2E Q3E 528. 6 3.0 27.1 203. 7 88.4 261.38 $ 70 60 3. 0 $ 1.2 377.6 344.0 24.1 3.35 $ 70 60 3.1% 24. 0% 20.3 0.9 86. 47 13% 6.6 112.36 $ 70 60 3.10 5.00 25. 0% 19. 4 560.0 475. 14 5.34 13% 6.0 75.

2 $119.00 $37.9% 4.05 84.8 $40.0 $6. 4% 19. 9 $8. 52 $0.3% 15.0 $6. 8 $8.125.6 59. 0 $10. 3 Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E $528. 4 -5.5% 31.5 $0.7 ($7. 7 Q4E $580. 6 $0.0 6.0% 24. 5) $68.5% 9. 0) $51.0 $11. 038.4 86. 8% 5.6 Fi scal 2008 Q2 Q3 $382. 3 $78.7 $101.7% 10. 0 ($32.5 ($7.6) $4.00 $32. 50 $29.4 86.9% 1. 0% All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports.4 86. 2) $61.0% 18.7% 19.59 $5.6% 26. 4% 12.7 22. 53 $5. 2% 1.1) $80. 1 $55.0 $65.2% 11. 4 $7. 5) $36. 5 $39. 8 $257. 4 $1.2% 10. 3 $110. 0% 17.4 $219. 2 Fi scal 2009E Q2E Q3E $280. 28 79. 2009 251 .4% 2.13 $48.7 $102.2% 6. 0 $33. 1 $28. 4 $11.9 $6.6 24.4% 8.5 $0.8% 24. 3 $17. 0 $6.1% 5. 61 79.9 84. 0% 18. 9 $384.4 Fi scal 2008 $1.4 $110. 5 $121.6 84.0% 91.4 86.16 $0.6 3.5 $0.0 $136. 4% 22.39 $10.0 $35.6 $0. 7% $1. 38 79. 3% 1.9% 26.3 ($4. 0) $50. 8 $7.8 $377.3% 3. 8 $58. 0 48.4 84. 3 C ont. 4% 1.1 $77.4 $0. 0 Q4E $443. 0 $9. 3% -26.9 49.5 84.07 $60.0% 7.43 79.1 $2.2 $7.6 ($7. 9 $7. 2% 8.0% 17.8% $281. 8% 1.7% -21.7 $6. 8% 2.1 $3.9% 19.7% 1.99 $1.8 $60. 8 ($8.1% 15.0% 26. 5 39. 434.8 $59. 0% $475. 2% 9.6 $0.50 $33.9% $161.19 $2. 2 86.741.4 86. 8 $22. Fully D il uted EP S Total P rimary S hares Total Fully Dilut ed S hares Percent of Sal es Gros s Margin R &D SG&A Operating Income N et Inc ome Tax Rate $0.1 19. 60 79. 0 83.4% 24. 58 80. 45 79.9 15. 4 86. 1% 1.0% $344. 8 56.6 $0. 9% $458. 1 Q1 $213.1 $31.095. 19 $5.5) $30.3 $7.8 $38.9 $67.0 $30.3 $12.4) $66.3% 6. 1% 1.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 274: SPWRA Income Statement Fiscal Year-end: D ec.8 $37.9 ($8.8 $16. 3% 6.9 $13.3% 11.6 $6.7% 17. 0% 27. 1 -1. 7% 13.0 $6.4% 61. 5 $23.20 $192.7% $225.0% 13.0% 7.1 Fiscal 2010E $2.3 $6.0 $6.9 31.1% $430.8 $38.3% 26.6% $377. 2% 1.0) $52. 5 $33.4 86. 4% 7.7 $2.5 $74.4% 6. 00 $38.8 $23. 2% 29.0 $33.2% 33.2 ($30. 0 $29.33 79.0 $27.0 $9. 7 $0.8 $78. 7 $6.4% 19. 00 $5. 0% 17. 6 86. 25 $78.9% 24.0% 18.8% 8.8 Q4 $401.49 $5.90 80. 3 $13.8 $43. 7 ($1. 0 $0.9% 7.8% 1.0% 18. 5 ($16.39 79. 3 $15.1 $73.41 $5. 2% 9. 0% 18.0 ($8.5% 6.3% 8.0 Q1E $456. 68 $5.1% 113. 14 79.6 Fiscal 2009E $1. 5% 18.0 $560.8% 5.0 $37. 00 $138. 00 $51. 7 $418.5 $24.8 $7. 3% 6. 4 $6.3 $27. 3 ($8.7 ($18.8 $10. 44 79.0 $13.8 $29.0 $10.0 $7.4% 26.9 $22.0% 1.6 $89. 9% 29. 0) $239.25 $4.4% 10. 4 ($7. 9% 32. 9 $260.4 86. 5) $9.5 $125.8 $18.8% 9. 0 $0.6% 24. 4 $104.2% 1.6% 1.9% 5.6% 88.0 $0.00 $38.0) $32.4% 6.8 $4.2% $208. 5% $364.70 79.00 $11. Barclays Capital estimates May 01.3% 11. 0 5.7 $3. 8% 119.6 $0.0 $31.0 $6. 0 $12.4% 10. 2 $5. 6 $23. 3 3.4 85. 2% 78.9 $51. 7% 6. R evenues QoQ YoY C os t of Goods Gros s Margin R &D SG&A St oc k Based Comp Amortiz at ion of Intangi bles Operating Income Other Income (Exp) Profit B efore Taxes Taxes Equity in Earnings of Unc onsolidated Invest ees (Net of Taxes) N et I ncom e Q1 $273.2 $8.3% 14. 1% $267.5% 26.9% $281.1% 11. 9 $43. 00 $24.6 $20.28 79.8 -46.1 $3.2% 24.0) $187.356. 0 $6.0 $29.0 $98.4% 6.1 $10. 2% 6. 8 $11.8 $17. 9% 24.0 6.9% $1.0 $13.4% 24.2 $396. 0 $46. 5% $1.3% 8.

2 5% $23 1.7 $976 .0 Q4E ($55.3% 2.8% 1 1.0 $80 1.9% 43.8 1.7 $1.4 46.8 $1 16.1 32.4% 0 .2 --------$2 .9 $1.0 $1.1 43.9 2.3% 4 1.8 $19 4.6 $1 90.0 $ 9.8 $9 96.0 $9 13.92 9 == === = $2 59.9% 18.9 $1 84.9 % 0.6 --------$1. 2009 .42 ($ 0.1 11 % $245 .1 94.3 $159 .2% 8 .9 % 0.7 $1.5 % 7 .7% 42.3 $ 0.6 $ 6.9 3.6 68 == === = $2 92.1 $134 .6 % 0 .0 8% $2 41.0 $2 .8) $33 6.17 1 0.1 32% $467 .5 32% $66 7.9 1 .0 $ 28.0 $919 .55 55 1.2% 53.3 $1 90.2 61% $25 1.2% 6.1% 4 .068.0) $251 .0 $114 .5 $ 0.9 $1 .255 .8 1 55 2.8 28 $ 0.9 % 0.7 19% $24 0.07 $0.99 19.6% $1 1.0 $28 3.8% 54.8 $ 1. Cash Book & Ca sh Value Boo k Val ue Per Sha re Ca sh Pe r Sha re Fisca l 200 8 Q2 Q3 $3 35.0 $1 .0 % 9.9 $ 1.021.4 $5 53.6 40 % $6 67.2 % 7.2 50.4% 0.5 1.6% 8.2% 6 .7 % $10.6 65 5.4% 6.9 3 ($ 0.1 40% $46 7.4 68 % $ 0.5 $221 .4 66% $0.2% 0.8 $11 0.7 $1.8 3% $2 31.9 11.0 $204 .6 31 % $4 25.0 35 % $4 25.6 1.4 60 % $541 .25) 12.73 4 === === $30 2.0 $0 .5 % 5 .3) $269 .0% 12.8 % 3 .8% 18.7 70 % $0 .7 $75 .7% 4 1.4 --------$1 .4% 0.3 35% $46 7.3 $901 .0 Q4 $43 5.2 4.0 --------$2.1% $1 1.2 $73 9.8% 10.0 72 % $ 0.7 $2 49.1 $61 2.5 36% $467 . Ba la nce Sheet ASSETS Cash & Se curities Accounts R eceivab le % o f Sales Inventories Othe r Curre nt Assets Total Cu rre nt Assets Net PP&E PP&E Growth Rate Good will & Intan gibl es Vend or Prep ayments Othe r Assets Total Assets LIAB .1% 50.5 65% $2 00.6) $3 52.7 % 11.7 $91 7.77 55 2 .7 $34 1. a nd Equity Q1 $357 .1 61 % $545 .185 . Current Po rti on Oth er Total Curren t Lia bil iti es Cu stome r Advan ce s Lon g-Te rm Deb t Cu stome r Advan ce .1 97 % $ 0.7 9 $5.5% 15.9) $3 16.1 $477 .007 .0 $2.9 $1.5% 1 5.7% 5.2 4 1.0 11.5 88 == === = $2 72.8 2 .4 15 2 4.7 138 3.4 % 1 2.046 === === $15 3.0 $5 13.6 $8 83.1 --------$2.79 ($0 .8 4 7.09 4 === == = $28 0.4 82 5.0 $2 41.0 1 4.1 % 6.0 Fis cal 2 010E Q2E Q3 E ($21.9 3 6% $6 67.2 $7 48.8 2 .0 % 0.0 $222 .6 $1 44.6% 0 .1 $22 1.8 $6 40.5 $221 .8 $14 9.0 ($ 38.3 --------$2 .2 6 0% $34 3.082.7 2 .6 $169 .9% 12 .64) All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports.5 $9 76.4 6 0% $51 2.8 $0.1 51. exc.1 1.5% 6.1 $47 1.6 $ 6.1% 15.4 --------$2.5 $1 90.6 $87 0.1 $9 68.6 $163 .8 $773 .1 % 4 7.9 $749 .2 $22 1.0 $19 1.3% 2.7 60% $6 30.1 5 .0% 0.49 ($0.1% 13.7% 13.3 52% $1 90.9 % 0 .4% $13.7 $3 81.0 VALUATION R ATIOS Profita bility Ratios Re tu rn On Equity Re tu rn o n Avg Equi ty * Net Margi n Asset Turn s Leverag e Re tu rn On Asse ts Re tu rn On Net Assets/R OIC Re tu rn On Sales * Avg Ove r La st 4 Qtrs Efficie nc y Ra tios Sal es/Total Assets A/R Days Sal es Out Inventory Tu rn s Da ys of Inve nto ry Liquidity Ratios Cu rrent Ra ti o Quick Ratio Ne t Working Cap ital L ong-term D ebt/Equ ity Total Deb t/Equity Op In c/Assets.9 3 $5.9 1.6 65 3.2 4 0.7 $1 95.7 $267 .9 --------$2.8% 6 .0% 0.0 Q4E ($5 2.6 $6.1 % 1 1.8 1.1 61.6% $13 .6 143 4.2 $2 21.8 2. Barclays Capital estimates 252 May 01.8 1.6 6 0% $69 3.8 $8 94.4 % 5 .9 $1 .0 Q1 $35 4.09 $ 0.0% 7.7% 9.071 .6 $18 4.65 53 4.218 .4 $17 9. LT Po rtio n Othe r Li abil ities Contributed Ca pital Retaine d Ea rn ings Shareh olde rs' Equ ity Total Li ab.9 $2 21. & SHRHLDRS' EQUITY Accounts Pa ya ble % of COGS CY Inte rco mpany A/P Advan ce from CY Paymen t to C Y.0 $1 38.6 0) 8 .1 $7 88.5% 14.6% $14 .0 70% $0.8 4 59 5.8 54.6 $ 6.78 47 5.7 $ 88.9% 0.6 $1 78.8% 46.82 55 2.0 $4 30.09 4 $0 .3 1.9 5.8 2.0 Fisc al 20 09E Q2 E Q3E $ 15.7 $58 6.0 $2.6 $76 4.305 = === == $255 .1 % 5.52 $3.3% 5.7 $432 .6 $1.0 $2.7 $728 .2 $164 .6 % $1 4.1 $0 .1 5% $2 31.2 % 39 .8 67 % $ 0.8% 0.4 4) 11 .0 ($ 78.8 $ 0.0 $2 .6 $1 74.5 81 3.4 $420 .8 56 == === = $3 32.7 $ 98.9% $13.6 $0 .5 61% $6 97.1 3 .7 13 3 3.9 $ 0.5% 19.8 1 .305 $0.0 $4 52.7 $984 .0 $2 61.0 $2.692 $0.7% $11 .1 $ 0.7 1.73 4 $0 .0 $18 8.3% $13 .0 $2.0% 10.8 $620 .7 $79 6.91) 11.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 275: SPWRA Balance Sheet Fis cal Yea r-end: Dec.78 $ 4.186 .9 $3 26.4 $22 1.3% 4.9 3.6 68 $ 0.4 2.7 7% $231 .8 35 % $6 67.0 --------$2.9 $44 6.1 58 % $188 .6 $15 4.3 % 0 .2 $ 68.8 7% $23 1.0 % 0 .2% 13.0% 0.5 $0 .09 1.9 5.3 53.6 $1 58.9% 0.92 9 $ 0.0 $3 07.0 $2 .218 .0 $33 .6% 51.6 $6 .7 $ 1.8 28 == === = $1 87.6 $15 8.1 68% $0 .2% 1 1.79 55 2.8 60% $6 70.5 % $1 4.4 1.145.03 $ 4.8 $1.6 73% $0.6 5% $2 31.7 14% $23 6.4% 1 3.9% 0.6 $2 71.7 5% $231 .4 $2 21.172.77 44 4.2 --------$1 .120.9 39 .6 72% $0 .692 === === $152 .6 $6 .293.6 $2 08.6 $9 96.9 193 3.7 1 54 2.5 $10 1.71 11.3 % 4 0.6% 7.1 5 .37 ($0.7 136 3 .0 $1 82.8 40% $425 .0 $2.1 42.8 $68 7.10 23.9% 0.7 $1.4 $20 0.216 .9 $ 1.3% 0 .1% 8 .8 2.332 .0 % 8 .2 % $1 5.2 4 1.3% 3.8 % 5 .9 7.5% 6.7 $ 1.202 = == === $227 .0 --------$2.9 0.5 88 $ 0.0 Q1E $61 .6% 16.9 10.2 $11.0 $17 3.1 3.7 $1.8 56 $ 0.1% 15 .0 $1 22.7 66% $0 .3 % 6 .2 7 21.2 $5 36.046 $0 .7 $1.9% 2.142 === === $27 2.9 $ 1.7% 2.3 % 6.4 36 % $47 8.0% 0 .13 4.0 2.6 $6.202 $0.6 $829 .5% 10.142 $0 .2 % 0.0 $16 8.8 $0.2 $16 2.4 % 0.7 3% $231 .8 7 0% $ 0.6 14 2 4.76 55 2 .8 207 6.1 $159 .1 5.6 $6 .7% 19.7% 5.2 --------$2 .40 64 1.9 $1.6% 7 .0 $1 .3 $ 69.

58 $ 2.97 110.5% 270.21 0.5 171.0 Q4E 600.9 24.6% 281.0 90.19 $ 3.5% 25.0 206.5 304.8 Q4E 400.3 367.0 115.0 70.8 22.47 0.14 0.15 $ 2.0 16.0 96 0.0 125.00 320.5 101.15 2.80 $ $ $ $ 50% 50% 1.84 0.7 127.50 0.8 825.0 80.3 600.0 16.5 Fiscal 2008E Q2 Q3 200.0 467.0 16.5 94% 53% 48% $ 2.74 0.6% 6.1 18 44.8 30.0 180.0 75% 50% 50% 85% 15% 3.0 16.0 200.77 $ 3.0 120.0 16.71 $ 2.94 0.80 $ $ $ $ 50% 50% 1.0 16.00 $ $ $ $ $ 90% 10% 3.0 180.08 0.6% 6.6% 7.0 16.8 1373.79 0.2 325.92 10% 12% 10% -18% 3% 6% 2% -4% -24% $ 2.0 220.8 27.80 1.1% 210.0 80.80 50% 50% 1.0 16.86 $ 1.0 100.1 195.8% 68.0 16.0 77.21 0.5 200. Barclays Capital estimates May 01.0% 75.14 2.01 $ $ $ $ 451.7 362.24 0.0 Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E 450.1 334.4 21.30 0.22 0.16 2.39 0.6% 5.00 350.73 $ $ $ $ 94% 6% 89% 12% $ $ $ $ 60% 40% 2.30 0.5 85.0 200.8 235.4 172.25 $ 4.40 329.0 150.0 202.5 55.45 0. 2009 253 .0 130.6% 5.1 347.53 -35% -39% -40% -26% -36% -15% -5% -5% -3% $ 2.7 298.0 347.80 0.0 36.0 235.80 $ $ $ $ 50% 50% 2.0 100.13 0.5 252.8 151.3 125.56 0.0 100.0 135.4 218.6 100.0 35.27 0.7 236.44 0.3% 80.5 Fiscal 2010E Revenues COGS Gross Profit Gross Margin (%) Out put (MW) S ilicon Breakdown S pot Contract Costs ($/W) S pot Contract P roc es sing Cos ts Chec k S ilicon P rices ($/kg) S pot Contract Conversion Efficiency Grams/Wat t ASP ($/Watt) P V Modules y /y ( %) q/q (%) $ $ $ $ $ 227.8 117.6% 5.0 289.0 857.7 324.2% 78.80 $ $ $ $ 60% 40% 1.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 276: YGE Ea rnings Drivers FY E: December Annual Capacity (MW) Quarterly Capacity (MW) Available Capacit y (MW) Q1 200.1 18.0 Fiscal 2009E Q1E 675.00 $ 1.4 1060.20 0.35 0.3 470.94 -21% .0 465.35 175.0 168.3 345.3% 230.73 $ 1.8 172.4 87.0 200.45 $ 2.89 0.0 200.0 150.0 70.0 187.0 150.3 21.5 168.0% 547.6% 7.7 54.6 Q4E 900.36 $ 1.35 0.6% 5.0 28.0 307.0 50.0 16.0 100.0 251.30 $ $ $ $ $ 85% 15% 3.0 Fiscal 2008E Q1E 400.0 26.6 25.22% -24% -27% -23% -9% -7% .07 $ 3.80 $ $ $ $ 40% 60% 2.6 203.7% 112.0 220.10 0.7% -7% All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports.0 1359.0 120.0 225.6% 54.94 100.6 22.7 215.8 1094.45 0.6 15.0 245.46 0.80 -28% 95.7 347.30 190.88 107.5 210.2% 250.3 400.3% 160.39 0.6% 6.37 $ 2.1 74.0 474.2 33.05 1.3 185.6% 6.1 22.0 130.6 314.7 127.6% 6.00 337.0 135.80 0.0 460.6% 6.0 16.0 112.30 149.9 72.40 204.90 0.15 0.3 25.9 Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E 750.63 0.8% 200.91 $ 4.0 50.6 289.5 391.0 16.0 150.2 13.43 0.17 $ 4.80 $ $ $ $ 50% 50% 1.0 366.55 0.

7 -4.0 $99.1 Fi scal 2010E Q2E Q3E $101.0 $0.1% 15.6 ($4.2% 22. 1% 0.2% 309. 1 4. 0 $0.8 Fi scal 2010E $371.0 $22.8 349. 8% 10.6 219. 0% 11.1% 22. 5% 6.9 Fiscal 2009E $1. 7 $54. 0) $31.9 $1. 3% -832.6 $37.5% $345.9% 14. 7 21. 1% 14.0 $19.13 127.8% 9.4 ($9.1% 9.5% -4.1 10.17 127. 0 $0. 0) $0.11 $1. Barclays Capital estimates 254 May 01.3 $8.0 $61.5% 12. 9% 23. 8) $0.1 $17. 9 $14. 3 117. 5% 34.2 49. 5 3.0 $2. 1 1.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 277: YGE Income Statement Fi scal 2008E FY E: Decemb er Revenue QoQ YoY Cost of Goods Gross Profit R&D S ell ing. 1 ($18.7% -21.0 $34.9% -0.4 ($42. 9% -13. 0) $0. 62 127. 4% -3. 4 $143.36 127. 1% -7. 1% 24. 4 ($4.9 ($16.2 $0.9% $10.8 $14.1% 14. 7% 37. 0 $4.6) $17. 8 $0.9% 15. 6 $36. 5% $208.0% 17.1 ($4.17 $0. 1% $400.5% 0.6% $172.2 $11. 44 127.1% $53. 4 128.0 $6.6 118. General & Admi n.2 $77.3% 262. 5 $15.6% 0.3 $33.1) $0.2% 19.7 $298. 7) $0. 3% 12. 3% 32. 9% $171.48 127. 0 $2.0 $4.0 $80. 0% 28. 8 $117.0 $56.25 127.3 Q4E $467.9 $0. 7 $91. 2% 20.22 127.8 $2.1 ($6. 7 $127.10 127.7) $0. 7% $171.5 Q4 $258.4 129.1 7.6% 19. 7 $75.4 128. 0 $196.5% FY E: Decemb er P ro Forma EBITDA % Change Y/ Y % Change Q/Q % S al es LTM EBITDA Capital S pending % of S al es Depreci atio n % of COGS FCF Ops E st.0 $0.2% 97.8% 0. 4 128.2 ($21.2) $0. 5% $87.25 $0. 9% ($18.844. 8 $10. 3) $65. 4% 6. 1 0. 8 42.7% $40. 7% 16.37 $0.2% 57.2 $67.8 ($10. 4 $134.0 Q4E $474. 5% ($15.4% $24. 9 41.9% $159. 0 $6.0 $0. 5% $41. 45 $0.9 $0.3% $295.4 129. 2% $11.8 $307. 3% 83.2% -10. 7% 5.1 ($3. 0 $220. 8 $38. 9 $72.2 $18.0% $93. 6% 21.1 -20.12 $0.2% $220. 2 $272. 7 $177.9 ($10. 1 $10.5% 10. 1% 20.5 $13.9% $10.9% 4.1 $3.0 $17. 0 $4.0 $0.2 $40. 3% $304.1 ($6. 4) $0.2% 13.1% 1. 0% 26.4 3. 0) Fi scal 2008E Q2 Q3 $67.7% -0.4% 0.5% $1.4 129. 0 $69.9 $9.2% 21.2 $35. 3 3.3 $7.5 Q4E $72.50 127.1 Fi scal 2009E Q2E $289.3 Q2 $289.13 $0. 3 Fi scal 2009E Q2E Q3E $46.8% 5. 8 $100. 2) $0.4 24.1 ($36.1 $104.1 $0. 1 ($19.6 $2.2% 12.3 3.9 $31.4% 7.6% $1. 0) $0.7) $0. 0 $18.1% $11.0% 18. 7% $215. 1% $324.7% ($64.1 ($19. 5 All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports. 1 $74.8 220.8) $0.6% $10. 0 15.0 $79. 5% -10. 3% -14.4 23.5% -169. 6 $22.5% $181.5% 12.3 129.4 ($6. 3 $138.9) $141.3% 5.1 $20.8 $0.0 $6. 2) $43.3 $68.0 $20.8% $347.5% 27.5% $371.6 $9. 1% 13.0 $0. 5) Q4 $24.8 Q3E $391. 0 $7.4 $61.2% -0.7% 29. 060. 1% 0. 0 $0.6% $224. 7) Q1E $23.9 Fi scal 2010E Q2E $460. 0 $14.3% 13.0% 0.0 $69. 5% 1.7 $85. 1 4. 6% 22.3% 17.6 $43.1 $54.7% $414.5 $237. 2% 7. 7 $56.5% -4.0 $44.5% 15.Ful ly Dilu ted (M) P ercent of Sal es Gross Margin I ncrem ent al Gross Margin R&D S G& A Operat ing Income Net I ncome Tax Rat e Q1 $227.1 $2.9 $76. 5) $0. 4 $66.5% 0.7 ($0.3% 17.9% 58.0) $0. 5% 0. Operati ng E xp enses Operati ng I ncome Non operating (i nco me) exp ense: I nterest income (expense) I ncome (Loss) from an aff iliate Forex and ot her gain (loss) Non operating (i nco me) exp ense I ncom e (loss) befo re taxes I ncom e Tax E xpense (Benefit) Net Income (l oss) Mi nority Interest Accretion of red eem abl e converti ble preferred sh ares Net income avail able to ordi nary sharehol ders B asic income (loss) per share Diluted incom e (loss) per share f rom Operations Weighted average shares used Avg Shares . 7 $90.0% 19.1 ($0. 5 35.4 -21.1 Q4E Q1E $106.0 $141.0 ($14.1 4.3 3.1 5.6 $2. 1% 18.8) $0.6% 19. 0 $0.4 128.8% 472.1) $0.4 ($4. 0 $30.8% 30.4 4.6) $0.3% 10.6% 17.4 ($19.4% 9.6) $23. 1% 16.2 $16.0% 19. 1 $0.23 127. 3% $262. 35 127.0 $0.2 24.8 102.3 $78. 2 $88.4% $55.1 ($6. 4 $68. 0% $1.7 $19.4 129.7% 22.0 $32. 4 ($6.0 $24.0 $16.9 $89.9 $0. 5% 6. 6% $366.1 4. 8) $14. 1) $0. 8% 0.2 26.5% 23. 6% 7.9% $10.9% 208. 5 $1.3 $61. 0 $49. 0 $46. 0 $78. 62 $0. 0% 0.00 $0.9% 17.3% $72. 9% 122.4 ($5.4 3. 7 27. 0 $28.4 128.1 1. 0) $0.4 129. 9 $19.1 5.9) $29. 0 $22.5 $269. 3 $2.3 $115.0% 22.5 $55. 0 $4.7% 20. 0 $35.79 $0.0 ($10.7) $0.4% 144. 35 $0.7 $0.6% $10. 3% 17. 0 $31.0) $0. 9 $19. 9% $347.3 $125.0 23. 5 ($5.2% 0.6% 4. 0 $0.4% 4.0 $98. 5 12.6% 23. 1 ($18.7 Q3 $325.5% 12.5% 7.7 $19.0% $235. 0 $0.8 $9.8 $30. 1 ($24. 4 $87.4 $15.6% 12. 3 $90.2 91. 3 ($74. 6 ($4. 4% 19. 1 ($6.0 29.4% 67.0 20.3% -5. (PF EBITDA + NI -Capex) Q1 $50.9 ($0.7% 27. 0 $194.2 $0. 4 6. 0) $0.4 46.0 $18.5% $10.5% 7. 8 $16. 4 $9. 2) $0.7% ($0. 359. 0) $0.6 ($4. 7) $0. 3 4.46 $1.8% 20. 4 $167. 4 $22.3 62. 8% $334.4 949.0% 10.0% $252.2 Fiscal 2008E $208.9 ($2.4% $82. 4) $0.1 4.1% 0. 8% 47.5% 7.2% $11.1 4.1 $2. 4 $16. 1) $46.0 $29.24 $0.2 453. 0% 10.8% -2.0% 18.0% 25.1% $11. 7 $326.7 Fi scal 2010E $1. 7 $6.0% ($2.77 127.1% $45.4 128. 0 ($9.4 66.373.7% $10. 9% 0.12 127.49 $0.6 $0.1 4.1% 18. 9) $0.100. 9% $173.1% 15.0 $55. 2% 25.9 $57.6% $863. 1% 10.4 ($4.8 $3. 4% 5. 0 $0.1 $94.1% 22.7% 14.1 $1. 3 $2.3) $0.3 ($13.0 Fiscal 2008A $1.00 127.5% 21. 6 $68. 5 Q3E $465.5 14.1 4. 4 129. 0 $62.4 4. 1 $30. 4 $34.6 ($2.0 $6.7 $0. 4 128.4 129.4% $184.3% 91.1% $136. 2 $14.4 $19.2 68.7% -62.7 $127. 3 $9. 4% 3.6 $40. 2009 .3 3.3 Q1E $203.1 $16.8% 5.5% 35.4 6. 5% 25.0% 23.0 $6. 0) $0.0 $26. 4 $0. 6) $45. 6 $470.0) $0.4% -1.5% 0.3 3.5% $10.0% 6. 3% 6. 2 $22.8 $39. 0 35.2 $22.2% 371. 9 Q1E $451. 4) Fiscal 2009E $262. 7 $75.3% 12.5) $20.22 $0.7 ($9.

-----------.39 ($3.6 $5.9 $413.3 2.29 1.01 ($2.04 $0.7 0% $0.96 $3.80 67 3.000 $2.7 77 19% 22% 8% 9% 10% 0 .6 $799 0.7 $501 1.7 0% $0.096 $1.83 $2.-----------$2.1% 45.0 $597.2% $ 147 $72 $0 $0 $672 $0 $93 $ 255 $9 $ 101 $7 -----------$1.0 $0.96 1.145 -----------.00 ($0.0 Q4E $119 $13 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $151 $171 52% 53% $1 82 $ 282 6 2.14 $2.4 -11.8% 63.7 0% $0.8% 38.0 $0.8 2.1 0.4 $741 0.2 $4.235 $0 $0 $99 $99 $567 $574 $9 $9 $98 $98 $34 $34 -----------.781 ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== $300 $0 $92 35 .-----------$2.5 -15.-----------.933 ====== $300 $0 $69 1 5% $14 $8 $2 $0 $1 $393 $8 $2 98 $699 $204 $0 -----------$1.5 $482 2.1% 45.5 $7.6% 68 .4% -12.137 ====== Q2 Fiscal 2008 Q3 Q4 Q1E Fiscal 2009 Q2E Q3E Q4E Q1E $40 3 $0 $0 $285 63% $ 18 1 40% $ 11 3 $83 $0 $0 $1.0 $292.3 1.7 -4.67 $0.71 $2.8 $482 1.0 $0.857 ====== $300 $0 $68 15% $14 $8 $2 $0 $1 $39 2 $8 $ 298 $69 8 $204 $0 -----------$95 5 -----------$1.9 $0.28) $5.25 ($2.7% 58 .72 67 5.34 5 $1.09 ($2.6 101 12% 20% 5% 6% 8% 0.50) $7.27) $5.-----------.6 $7.3 50 24% 29% 13% 18% 14% 0.0 $597. Barclays Capital estimates May 01.2 $6.7% 34.1% 85 . net Investment i n and advances to an affili ate and other assets Total Assets LIAB.0% -12.-----------.9 -0.2% 7 6.12 ($1.7 2.0 $0.7% -7.0 $0. 2009 255 .03 0 -----------$1.71 1.2 -15.95 58 7.0 $517 $557 $0 $0 $0 $0 $294 $295 63% 63% $ 186 $ 187 40% 40% $ 113 $ 113 $83 $83 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1.1 $5.93 62 7.-----------$1.86 48 4.1 4.47 $4.680 $1.9 46 1.9 124 15% 12% 7% 8% 9% 0 .50 $1.625 $1.3% -19.1% 46.0 $525 1.45 1.0 $0.134 $0 $99 $559 $9 $98 $34 -----------$1.92 ($2.2% -15.1 ) $120.86) $5.494 ====== ====== $494.52 71 2.93 3 ====== $597.7% 35. net % Sal es Inven tories % Sales Prepaymen t to suppl iers Prep aid expenses and Other current assets Deferred Income Taxes Due from related parti es Total Curr ent Assets Amount due from a related party Prepayment to suppl ier Property.4 $473 1.45 $1.7 0% $0.58 ($1.30 ($0.6 2.5% 6 2.85 $4.8 -16% 41% ($56.193 $1.38 1.4 $5. net Lan d use righ ts Good wil l and Intang ibl e assets.3% -15.0 -----------.4 67 28% 14% 13% 16% 14% 0.93 58 7.7 0% $0.3 $674 0.32) $8.8% -3.5 2.43 ($2.6 2.58) $5.-----------$1.0 $486 2.0 $0.50 1.83 1.6 -17.9% 116% 60% 40% 40% $113 $ 113 $ 11 3 $ 113 $113 $83 $83 $83 $83 $83 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $889 $821 $850 $908 $998 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $99 $99 $99 $99 $99 $4 96 $508 $52 0 $531 $5 43 $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 $98 $98 $98 $98 $98 $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 -----------.-----------$699 $705 $73 2 $787 -----------.494 ====== ====== $237 $0 $47 1 6.9 2.2 1.7% 86.1% -21.0 122 4% 15% 2% 2% 3% 0.6% -3.2% 42.137 ====== $115 $0 $2 8 12.64 76 3. & SHRHLDRS' EQUITY S-Term Debt Borro win gs fro m related parties Accounts payable % Sal es Accrued exp enses and other current li abi lities Advance pa yments from customers Divi dend payable Income taxes payabl e Other amounts due to related parties Total Curr ent Liabilities: Defe rred in come Ta xes Mandatory redee mab le a nd convertib le bon ds an d othe r l iab ili ties Total Liabilities Minority Interest Redeemable convertible pr efer red shares Shareholders' Equity Total Liabilities & Shareholders' Equity Total Debt % Change Q/Q $ Change Check-sum Performance Metrics Pr ofitability Ratios Return On Eq uity Return on Avg Equity Return On Assets Return On Net A ssets Return On Sales Efficiency Ratios Sales / Total Assets A/R Days Sal es Out Inventory Turns Days of Inventory Liquidity Ratios Current Ratio Quick Ratio Net Working Capital ($M) Long-Term Debt / Equity Debt/Capi tal Total Debt / Equ ity EBITDA/Inter est EBITDA.0% 43.7% $14 $8 $2 $0 $1 $416 $8 $2 98 $722 $204 $0 $300 $0 $3 1 15% $14 $8 $2 $0 $1 $354 $8 $ 298 $660 $204 $0 $300 $0 $4 3 15% $14 $8 $2 $0 $1 $36 7 $8 $ 298 $67 3 $204 $0 $300 $0 $59 15% $14 $8 $2 $0 $1 $383 $8 $ 298 $689 $204 $0 $300 $0 $71 15% $14 $8 $2 $0 $1 $395 $8 $2 98 $701 $204 $0 -----------$876 -----------$1.07 58 7.04) $7.8% 36.0 30% 21% 16% 17% 20% 0 .680 ====== ====== ====== ====== $597.29 $1.-----------$653 $68 5 -----------.1 0.Capex/Inter est Book & Cash Value Book Val ue Per Share Cash Per Share Net Cash Per Share Tangi ble Book value Q1 $84 $0 $0 $167 73% $ 203 89.-----------$1.5 49 17% 24% 10% 13% 11% 0.6% -22.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 278: YGE Balance Sheet FYE: December Assets Current Assets: Cash Restric ted Cash Accounts recei vabl e from rel ated party Accounts recei vabl e.345 $1.9 -9.3 50 33% 27% 17% 22% 17% 0 .14 1.570 $1.7 $841 0.23) $6.1% $21 $6 $2 $0 $1 $312 $14 $177 $504 $188 $0 $264 $0 $ 70 21.65 ($1.9% 8 4.5% -19.42) $6.5% $19 $6 $2 $0 $1 $171 $11 $ 178 $361 $171 $0 -----------$605 -----------$1.-----------$1.2 1.38 $3.6% 4 8.3 $8.2% 38.000 $2.4 2. pl an t an d equip men t.6 -18.7% $2 60 $ 17 0 $86 $93 $0 $0 $0 $0 $798 $847 $0 $0 $104 $95 $3 27 $ 437 $9 $9 $1 01 $ 100 $6 $6 -----------.049 ====== ====== $300 $0 $7 0 15% $14 $8 $2 $0 $1 $394 $8 $ 298 $700 $204 $0 $300 $0 $7 0 15% $14 $8 $2 $0 $1 $394 $8 $ 298 $700 $204 $0 -----------.609 $1.80 ($2.-----------.0 Fiscal 201 0 Q2E Q3E $463 $0 $0 $291 63% $1 84 4 0% $113 $83 $0 $0 $1.065 $0 $99 $55 1 $9 $98 $34 -----------$1.-----------$1.7 0% $0.5 $6.9 1 58 7.8 47 41% 21% 20% 24% 19% 1.0 -----------.97 58 7.67 1.570 $1.0 $597.5% $24 $4 $2 $0 $1 $36 5 $ 15 $ 230 $610 $200 $0 $179 $231 $26 7 $288 $312 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $215 $159 $212 $267 $300 83% 78% 73% 68% 63% $2 99 $ 236 $ 17 4 $ 157 $1 90 115 .62) $4.0 $597.9% 40.04 1.0 $0.3% 5 4.609 $1.47 1.9 $0.82) $5.0% 8 1.0 $0.62) $8.7 0% $0.9% 32.62 5 $1.0% 72.-----------.0 $0.85 All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports.7 $467 1.781 ====== $597.-----------.4 $8.8 20% $81.4 108 27% 24% 13% 14% 15% 0.2 $5.0 $603 0.4% -14.2 51 29% 30% 16% 20% 16% 0.7 2.87 48 3.0 $5.857 ====== $597.3% 5 2.4 1.7 0% $0.049 ====== ====== $597.7 21% $102.

10 $1 .3 13% 351.500 65% 1219 0 23% 77% 10% 10% 80% 8.6 3 2.70 $1.0 0.0 222.8 189.7 31.0% -6% 65% 32% 32% 177.0 7 9% 13% 303.8 15 0 0 92 2 7.9 235 4.0 0.1 -17 0 4 36 9.6 11 0.4 0.0 -6% 91 8.77 -18% 0.6 2317.5 1 882.5 13% 119 .83 5% 0% 292.53 23 $0.5 7 23 $0.500 75% 1969 200 10% 90% 0% 0% 100% 11.8 3 5% 1 4% 249.6 433 .17 642 0 64 577 80 $1.0 280.4 130.50 $1.1 21 6.5 964.10 $1.2 137.8 264.67 27 $0.81 -38% -8% 129 .98 -18% -4% 30 1.0 0.73 5% 3% 200 .4 654.8 546.0 1070.45 0.2 171 .05 $1.3 0.3 -47% -47% 0.3 170.55 45% 93% 72% 56% 259. i nch) Sol ar pol y ($ p er kg) Pol y to wafer toll ing ($/W ) G ross Mar gins Semis Spot poly Spot wafe r Sol ar contract G ross Profits Semis Spot poly Spot wafe r Sol ar wafer O vera ll G M 6.0 36 0 0 93 29 .4 997.000 90% 1807 160 15% 85% 5% 10% 85% 54 51 8.70 13 .6 174.94 -25% 0.1% 9% 71% 42% 42% 1 06.9 499.20 $1 .0 21.0 0.0 1700.3 398.00 $1.0 964.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 279: WFR Earnings Drivers Fiscal 2008E FY E: December Q1E Q2E Q3E Q4E Fi scal 2008E Fiscal 2009 E Q1E Q2E Q3E Q4E Fiscal 2009E Fis 2010 cal E Q1E Q2E Q3E Q4E Fiscal 2010E Pol ysil icon C apacity (Me tric Ton s/Year) Ca pacity Uti lization Pol y Output Inventory Pol y Capacity for Semis Pol y Capacity for Sol ar Spot Poly Market Spot Wafer Market Co ntract Market Semiconductor Rev enue D riv ers Total MSI (Milli on Squ are Inches) Y/Y (%) MEMC Market Share MEMC W afer Starts (MSI) Y/Y (%) Q /Q (%) W afer ASPs ($ per sq .5 1225 .3 3% -2% 0.7% 45% 94% 73% 56% 2 82.55 25 $0 .4% 12% 69% 32% 32% 91.7 0.0 -3 5% 63 % 0.9 0.3 0 .2 1 3% 299. inch) Y/Y (%) Q /Q (%) Semiconductor Rev enue Y/Y (%) Solar Rev enue Dr ive rs Pol y Output for Sol ar Spot Market Spot Wafer Market Co ntract Market Pol y Spot Pricing ($ pe r kg) Spot Wafer Pri ci ng ($ per Wa tt) Pol y Contract Pri ci ng ($ per W att) Pol y Spot Revenue Spot Wafer Revenue Sol ar W afer Con tract Revenu e Total Sola r Re venue Total MEMC Revenue Cost of Goods Semis ($ p er sq.0 39% 13% 0.10 $1.70 -29% -7% 83 .0 7.95 0.0 8 .9% All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports.55 0 .500 85% 2 019 200 10% 90% 0% 0% 100% 5 409 10.1 0 0.55 1376 69 138 1170 200 $2.0 0 .000 80% 2200 200 10% 90% 0% 0% 100% 1 1.0 941 94 94 753 400 $2 .0 1 2.0 0.8 8 2% 793 79 79 635 350 $2.80 $1 .3 186.4 501.8 557.9 16 0.70 3 7.5 53 1.0 9 000.3% 18% 87% 62% 55% 19 2.0 129% 11% 0.0 21 6.03 -23% -21% 311.7 425 .00 0 70 % 157 5 200 10 % 90 % 0% 0% 100 % 9.7 183.9 249.6 101 .3 -5% 13% 11 9.45 199 9 0 0 199 9 70 $1.55 4 212 1572 0 0 1572 80 $1 .1 0 $1.0 0 0.3% 18% 71% 40% 40% 12 9.7 13% 30 6.0 0.5 16.79 -2% 0% 175.4 -61% 0% 0.10 0.0 0.4 88 .0 249.5 106 0 0 88 34.0 0 $1.6 296 .8 134 35 24 89 5 3.79 -1 0% 14 % 154.5 5 1 617 0 0 1 617 80 $1.95 $0.000 75% 1 125 0 30% 71% 10% 10% 80% 7.3% 34% 91% 69% 56% 1.8 10 6.8 1 500.1% -19% 63% 34% 32% 1 9.8 79 .05 0 .8 163 .0 167.0 5 3% 1 0% 0.500 44% 935 200 10% 90% 0% 10% 90% 9.75 -27% -7% 8 9.0 2 300.5 50.4 0.2% 31% 92% 70% 56% 269.7 237.61 25 $0.8 134. Barclays Capital estimates 256 May 01.5 9 0 0 51 18.9 13% 221.0 00 65% 13 00 0 10% 90% 20% 10% 70% 8.7 717.65 23 $0 .4 0.57 25 $0.8 26.2 183.4 79 0 0 91 34.004.3 1104.70 70.89 30 $0 .0 2100 .9 (5.4 13 % 195.0 5037.8 34 .8 0.1 13% 301.0% -22% 63% 33% 33% 7 .55 0.50 121 8 0 0 121 8 80 $1.75 27 $0.60 23 $0.70 25 $0.0 0.6 -29% 503.50 0 8 5% 244 4 20 0 10 % 90 % 0% 0% 100 % 12.2 -50% 917.0 0.3 0.0 8233.3 21 2.6 82 64 26 97 49.8 601.000 44% 880 100 5% 95% 0% 10% 90% 8.4 -61% -25% 0 .0 79 % 0.7 8 2% 1007.7 16% 2% 1.55 42 80 736 0 74 662 80 $1 .4 167.10 1780 0 0 1780 80 $1.3 378.7 23 12 21 137 45 .7 154.0 233 .6) 0.6 11 70 2 34 1 17 8 19 3 00 $2.4 5 2230 0 0 2230 60 $0.85 30 $0.8 13% 273 .0 107% 12% 0 .4 248 .5 -39% 190 0.3 90.10 0 .0 59% 17% 0.1% 36% 62% 33% 33% 194.000 90% 2700 200 10% 90% 0% 0% 100% 931 3 2335.71 -5% -10% 17 5.7 105 .6 233 .7% 32 % 67 % 37 % 37 % 170.7 12 3. 2009 .9 -39% 13% 24 7.9 23 0.4 579.88 -25% -10% 265.9 -18 0 3 26 4 .9% 24 % 68 % 38 % 38 % 600.6% 6% 66 % 30 % 30 % 59.9 13% 159 .3 397.0 363.4 21 0 0 71 23.45 758 1 149.4 322.5 1 170.1 11% 1% 0 .1 139 26 19 75 51.2 36.70 27.6 0 .5 0.0 264.1 39 1.9 15 9.0 0.8 918 .4 2005.3 146.3 222.0 2700.

0% 50.47 213 213 Q1 $501.4% 3.7 6.2) $0.7% 52. 0% 18. 5 $0. 2) ($17. 0% 49. 3 $194. 0 $0. 5% $ 96 6. 5 53. 7% -0 .0 14 .0) $166.0 $28.78 $1.0 215.3 230.1% Ca pi ta l Spending % of Sale s De pre cia ti on % of COG s FCF Ops Est .1 $0.7 20.0 $175. 55 210.7 $14.0) $487. 4% 15.6% -8.5 $25. 1) .80 226. 0 $193. 1 $17. 3% 1.0 $131. 0 ($1.4 -6.1 % $ 98 . 7% 3 2. 0 $0.9% 16. 7 -26.6 $600.0 $425. 3) ($2.0% 27.3 ($11. 8) ($3.0 $195.3 Q 1E $ 92 .7 $15.0% 34. 6) ($10.3 % $4 50 .10 0.5 22. 2% 4.5% 14. 9% 5. 5 25.9% 25.84 $0.01 $0. 4% 13.8% 6.3 ($10.0% 83. 9% 46 . 4 $285.7 $29.0) $101.9% ($0.0 23 .3 $40.0 $0.8) ($3. 0 $0.2% 39.7% $ 34 6.7 ) $ 35 2. 7 $48.3 $42.5) ($11.5 Q4 $425.6 % -2 0.4 4 8% 1 29 .4 % $5 1.0 $0. 0 $37.03 9. 6) ($9.3 $19.0 9. 8% $7 .3 $91.7 $31.9 % 21 . 4% $0.8 % $ 24 .3 ($9.5) ($41.1 ($26. 004. 9 -4. 04 $0.5 % $1 39 .0 ($2.1 Fi sc al 20 08 E Q 2E $ 26 8. 12 $0.9 1 5. 7% 1.19) 225.8) ($46.9% 3.1) ($11.7% 71.0 4 9. 33 224. 0) $141.1) ($13.0 2 7. 8 $27.2 % 8. 20 ($0.0 220.5 1 13 . 3 $25. 8% $ 54 7.3) ($2. 5 $25. 3% $ 11 7. 004. 0 39.6 Fisc al 20 10 E Q2 E $ 11 6.8 $3 52 .7) ($13. 6 $0. 8 $59.9% 16.6% 1.0 2 0.0 $0.2 $23.7 $73.86 $0.6% 137. 4 $0.0 ($5.8 $2.7% $ 12 2.0 38 .0 $64.8 57 01 .7 $1.9 38.1% 63.0 $147.2) ($15.8 $750.0 ($0.6) ($3.01 $0.4 $362. 7) ($13. 5) ($8.2 $0. 2009 257 .99 . 3 20.3 $1.0 $141.3 9 .7 $213.0 $67.7 $169. 2 $414.07) $0.1% 15.3% 26.9 $0. 8 $0. 2) ($14.0 $55.2% 0 .0% 34.2 1 2. 3% 42. 4 $25. 2% ( $1 00 .5 -7 9.1) $193.1) ($2. 6% -17. 2 15 .93 80 1.5 $0. 0 $120.37 $2.8 35. 3) ($2.7% 15.2 % FY 2 00 9E $ 1. 8 19.8% 15.9 $170.0 1 4.0 % $3 1.8% 19.0 19 . 8 $0.1 $857.2) $0.6 Q 3E $ 52 .3 $40.4.7% $7 26 .8 $232. 3 $39.0 ($1.7 $46. 8% 34.3 $269. 0 1 8.7 $0.1% 16.0 1 7.0 $212.2) -8. 5 $55.3 ($10. 8% $3 1. 4) $163. 0) $170.9 $0.1% 31. 4% $ 25 .7) ($9.8% 16.0 $141.9 $38. 9% $ 28 . 8 $194.2 ($42.0 ($15.7 $115. 0 $0.3 $ 87 .3 $10.0 $15. 6 FY 2010E $1.7 $6. 3 ($12.0 $0. 4 34. 5 $29. 1% Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E $433.9 $129.3% 0.9 $0. 9% 7.3% FY 2008 $2.5% 110.04 $0. 0% 75. 0% 3. 32 $0. 8 $ 85 . 8% 2.1 $12.9 % $3 3. 18 215.8 $67. 6% 39. 2% $ 32 1.equity income $229. 9) ($15. 8% $1 22 .9% -12.2) ($12.0 17.9 9.0% -67. 1% 22. 8) $69. 3 $42.5% 40.0 210.7 -6 2% 29 . Barclays Capital estimates May 01.0 $748.0% -20.9 $0.7 $927.7 $161.2 ($50. 4 $0.8) $231. 3% -44.2 Q4 E $8 5.8 $9 5.04 $0.6 $8 2. Admin.3 $242.71 227 229 $1. 6% 2.7% 45. 7) ($18.5 225.0 0.3 % $ 10 8.8) ($62.2 $0.2 $0.7% 5.8 ($46.5 $10. 1% 4. 4) $212.7 % . 5 $276. 7 $193.8 9 . 0% 15. 0% $ 33 .57 . 01 220.12 . 0 9 . 0 13. 0% .4 $29.6% 7. 2 $227. 41 $0.2 $0. 1% 4. 63 $0.10 7. 4 6.3% 4. 1% 5 0.0 9.3% Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E $171.1 % $9 65 .0 $0.x ls FYE: D ec ember Pro Forma EBITDA % Change Y/Y % Change Q/Q % Sal es LTM EB ITDA Q1 $2 41 .5 $59. 1% $0.5 $306.1 % $ 45 8.8% 62 .9 $25.8) ($3.04 $0.04) 222 222 $1. 9 $ 82 .0% 15.1) ($10.9% $0.7% 35.11) ($0. 04 $0. 8% 25.7 FY 2 00 8 $ 96 6.2% 13.0) ($18. R &D R es truc turing Operating E xpenses Operating I ncome N onoperati ng (income) expense: I nt erest expens e I nt erest income I nt erest expens e (inc ome) Other.5 $ 95 .0 $149. 4 $14.0 9. 4% 6.8 % $1 3.105. 8 $30. 4) ($44. 5% 13.8 $304.0 $0.0% 42. 0% 5. 0 $328.9 1 6. 3 $0.5 $0. 5) ($1. 7) ($11.90 $1.9% 5. 88 $0. 3% 6.7% $1 .8 ($11.21 $0.4 ($11.4% .7 $0.4% 9.05 $0.6 Q 4E $ 18 2. & Mk tg. 0) $0.0 0.1% $0.5 $9 0.6 $ 30 6. 2% 6.4) ($49. 5% 13.4 % $1 15 .4 19 8. 4% 34.7% $0.0 0.3 ($14. 9% $0. net N onoperati ng (income) expense $0.0 18 .1) $262.0 $ 85 . 09 $0. 7 $13. 0 $120. 65 $0. 0% -57. 4% 14.8% $499. 3% 63.0% 16. 26 $0.0 $40.6 $0.0 $21.3 $45.0) $34. 882. 04 $0.0 10 .8) ($3.0 05 .45 210.0 1 1.00 $0. 0 $0.0 $125.0 3 1. 6 5.5 FY 2009E $1.3) ($11.8 2.7 Q1 $214.9% 15.Ca pe x) $8 1.0 $414. 5% 17.5 1 0.0 $0.8) $195.1% 6. 9% 16.6% 38.3) ($10.6% 22.0) ($2. ( CFO.5 % 4 8.2) ($16. 04 ($0.3 $45.3 Income (l oss) before taxes.3% 3.25 $0.0 $70. 6 $43. 0 $0.9% $4 2.3 $30.6% 27. 3% 49.9 $38.8 $70.99 .0 $55.4 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 $531.53 $0. 13 $0.8% $0. 8% 41.4 % $ 76 .01 223.0 $28. 2) ($10.0 $0. 4% $ 1.Full y Di luted (M) Percent of S al es Gros s Margin Inc rement al Gros s Margin SG&A R &D Operating Income N et Inc ome Tax Rate 51.13 220. 0 $0.4 % -4 24 82 .1% 5.0% -6.6% $ 30 .3% 14.0 $0.0% Q4E $397.4% 3.8% 70. 4% $248.5 $5.7% 2.40 $0. 0% 29.7 Fis ca l 2 00 9E Q 2E ($ 0.8 $9.6 % 4 7.0 $0.9% $242.1 $12. 0 215. 7 $196. 3% $ 25 6.7 $73 . 0% $ 33 .3 -2 6. 5) $251.1% 43.0 1 3.3 ($11.1) ($10.3% .7% 9.6) ($10.95 $0.7 % 2 3.0 1 8.0 $67. 9% 15. 3 3% 48 . 3 ($13. 05 $0.8 $11. 76 228. 5 $0. 9% 41.4% $0. 24 $0. 1% 3 4.0 $0. 6 Q 4E $ 20 2.7% 1 6.0 $1.36 $0.6 $10. 1 $85. 3 227.0% 7. 0 $13. 92 $0.0% $34. 9% $0.0 $0.6% Q1E $391. 9 $10. 0 210.0 $0. 8% 1 1.4 34 .4 $195.0% 12.3% $3.0 $146. 67 $0.4% -89. 5 All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports.3 1 6.5 $28. 0 $52.7) ($17.17 $1.4 $21.3 % $2 2.0 $141. 4) ($2.1% 2.0 $85.7% $322.3 Q1 E $ 1. 5 $0.7% FY 20 10 E $ 54 7. 6 10 . 4 $10. 0% 152.04 $0. 1 $106. 7% $ 23 0.9 $218. 7) ($12. 0 $0.79 ($0. 0% -41.0 1 7.1 $146.7 $15.8 $106.9 % 1 6.6 Q3 E $25 4.0 $0.0% 4.82 $0. 281.9 % $5 96 .2 $120. 6 224.9% Q4E $557.1 $259.0% 54.7) ($8.6 . 5 $999.2 24. 3) ($24. 1% 15. 4 $105.0 9.3 % $2 8.0 $2. 7% 9.6% 6.3 4.0 225.18) 228. 8 15 . 0) $65.2) $748.3 ($11. 0 $86. 6 $282.3 $34.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 280: WFR Income Statement FYE : Decem ber R evenue QoQ YoY C os t of Goods Gros s P rofi t General. 6) ($20.1% 24.0 $1.1 13 .0 $414.0% FILE: W FR wk sh.4 C ash I ncom e Tax Income (l oss) before equity income JVs Equi ty i n income (loss) of JV s Minori ty i nterests N et I ncom e (l oss) C umulat ive pref erred s tock dividends N et I ncom e-Operations P ercent of R ev enue N on GAAP EP S (excludi ng opti ons) Options E xpens e N on GAAP EP S (inc options) GAA P EP S (inc options) Weighted average s hares used Avg S hares .0% $0.2 ) $ 90 . 4) ($6. 3 4.0 $85.4% $27 .9% 3. 7 Q3 E $1 56 . 9% $ 31 .0 $145. 8 $0.0 $0.7) $64.0 ($15. 4% $0. 5 231. 5% $ 23 0.0 ($30.0 % 24 . 2% 78.8% $0. 0 220. 0% 23.0% 45.0% $1. 31 $0.28 215.4% -9. 4 .0 37. 8) ($12. 5% 19. 5 $546.2 $ 63 .57 $0.8 $0. 2 $178.0) $78.27 $0. 5% $ 30 . 9) $1. 1) ($12. 3) $882.3 ($12.8% 37. 7) ($1.0 $0.9 % 3 1.0 $0.0 $28.6 $6. 7 $7.9% 26 . 0 . 3% ( $1 74 .

8 2.0 -----------$2.5% 1.285 -----------$3.3 $957 1.88 $8.4 $1. 2009 .0 $887 $109 $131 41% $138 43% $0 $38 $1.6 2.240 $406 2.4% 1.256 ====== $6 $319 57% $49 $0 $150 27% $0 $18 $38 $579 $24 $56 10% $0 $0 $0 $278 $937 $34 $0.5% -0.95 17% 8% 12% 17% 20% 0.086 ====== $6 $286 57% $48 $0 $150 30% $0 $18 $37 $544 $24 $54 11% $0 $0 $0 $278 $901 $34 $0.5% -9.057 1.0 -----------$2.111 $276 $231 43% $34 6% $0 $27 $1.3 -12.4 $1.9 $1.0% $9.24 13% 4% 9% 14% 17% 0.71 40 29.55 37 7.0 $890 $109 $202 41% $173 35% $0 $38 $1.046 -----------$2.1 0.2% 1.1 14 5.6 48 5.255 $416 1.2% 1.8% $10.54 6% 8% 4% 6% 9% 0.26 $5.4 49 5.49 All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports.165 1.062 -----------$2.05 $4.61 $4.8 -2.981 ====== $6 $227 57% $47 $0 $150 38% $0 $18 $34 $482 $24 $50 12% $0 $0 $0 $278 $834 $34 $0.285 $162 1.303 $1.5% -5.9 3.315 $243 1.0 -----------$2.38 28% 37% 20% 32% 34% 0.0% $9.2% 1.1 $0.4% 1. exc.2% 1.256 ====== $30.330 $294 1.3 0.43 $4.085 -----------$2.4% -12.6 2.678 $950 $110 $0 $101 $141 -----------$2.44 38% 40% 26% 42% 36% 0.1 $1.0 14 5.06 $4.9 46 5.6 2.0 $854 $109 $159 41% $153 39% $0 $38 $1.0 $4.4 -16.88 0% 27% 0% 0% 1% 0.980 ====== $30.375 $415 1.3% $9.9 32.59 37 7. net Prepaid and other current assets T otal Cu rrent Assets Net PP&E Investm ents in joint ventures Goodwill Deferred tax asset -.069 1.0 9.940 ====== $30.4% 1.0 $849 $109 $176 41% $154 35% $0 $38 $1.2% 1.0 -----------$1.01 10% 3% 7% 11% 14% 0.154 1.1 $0.6 6.5 -17.1 ($2.5% -8.7 $1.084 1.362 $292 $0 $0 $81 -----------$3.1 3.132 $292 $0 $76 $81 -----------$2.65 37 7.7% 1.92 $10.4 49 5.4% -8.2% $9.0 -----------$2.1 $1.3 $1.3% 1.2 -5.521 $1.086 ====== $30.1 $0.051 1.151 -----------$3.940 ====== $32.0 -----------$2.872 ====== $30.9 46 5.92 $4.2% 1.14 $4.004 -----------$2.9) $932 $187 $240 44% $41 8% $0 $28 $1. net Customer deposits % sal es Deferred revenues Income taxes Accrued wages and sal aries T otal Cu rrent L iabilities: L-Term Debt Pension Li abilities % Sales Customer deposits % sal es Deferred tax liabilities Other liabilities T otal Liab ilities Minority interests Redeemable preferred stock Shareholders' Eq uity To tal L iabilities & Sh areholders' Equ ity To tal Debt % Change Q/Q $ Chang e Performance M etrics Profitability Ratios Return On Equity Return on Avg Equity Return On Assets Return On Net Assets Return On Sales Efficiency Ratios Sales / Total Assets A/R Days Sales Out Inventory Turns Days of Inventory Number of Em ployees Revenue / Em ployee Annuali zed ($K) Liquidity Ratios Current Ratio Quick Ratio Net Working Capital ($M) Long-Term Debt / Equity Debt/Capital T otal Debt / Equity EBITDA/Interest EBITDA.88 41% 44% 28% 53% 40% 0.4% 1.86 25% 19% 17% 26% 25% 0.8 2.6 17.872 ====== $6 $224 57% $47 $0 $150 38% $0 $18 $35 $480 $24 $51 13% $0 $0 $0 $278 $833 $34 $0.39 $9.459 $1.864 ===== = $35.194 $292 $0 $76 $81 -----------$2.1 $0.05 $6.6 2.186 $292 $0 $0 $81 -----------$2.14 22% 14% 16% 23% 24% 0.2 -3.360 $373 1.91 $4.0 -----------$2.34 $8.7 49.3% 1.1 7.4% 1.48 $4.800 === === $30.4% -24.4 12 5.0 -----------$2.564 $904 $132 $0 $110 $155 -----------$2. % Sales Inventories % Sales Deferred tax assets.046 -----------$2.0 -----------$2.Capex/Interest Op Inc / Assets.7 3.0 3.1% $8.0 $865 $109 $161 41% $164 41% $0 $38 $1.214 $1.2 -6.0% $10.338 $1.300 $130 1.073 $292 $0 $76 $81 -----------$2.270 $323 1.736 === === $30.018 $292 $0 $76 $81 -----------$2.1 ($4.2 $963 1.1 $0.5% $9.1% 1.736 === === $6 $98 57% $46 $0 $150 87% $0 $18 $32 $349 $24 $47 27% $0 $0 $0 $278 $698 $34 $0.0 -----------$2.77 (3%) 16% -2% (4%) (9%) 0.1% 1.1% 1.333 $1.0 -----------$2.01 $5.36 $8.300 $292 $0 $0 $81 -----------$3.9 $898 $109 $169 79% $118 55% $0 $38 $1.79 $8.800 === === $6 $122 57% $45 $0 $150 70% $0 $18 $31 $372 $24 $45 21% $0 $0 $0 $278 $720 $34 $0.004 -----------$2.non-current Other assets T otal Assets LIAB.0% $9.37 $4.5% -24.041 $285 $0 $68 $87 -----------$2.76 $4.6% $8.884 == ==== $6 $184 57% $46 $0 $150 47% $0 $18 $33 $437 $24 $48 15% $0 $0 $0 $278 $787 $34 $0.29 $9.0 -----------$2.2 12 5.4 53.2 $1.3% -13.5% 0.429 $976 $318 $0 $90 $172 -----------$2.32 $4.4 49 5.149 1.3 $0.7 2.46 $4.0 $953 $109 $226 41% $195 35% $0 $38 $1. & SHRHLDRS' EQ UITY S-Term Debt & Borrowings Accounts payabl e % sal es Accrued liabilities Deferred tax l iabilities.a.9 -12.xls FYE: December Assets Current Assets: Cash and cash equival ents Short-term investm ents Accounts receivable.6 48 5.55 $4.084 1.4% $9.7 $1.3 $1.940 ====== $6 $248 57% $48 $0 $150 35% $0 $18 $36 $505 $24 $53 12% $0 $0 $0 $278 $860 $34 $0.3 25.3 $1.330 $298 1. Barclays Capital estimates 258 May 01.53 $4.25 37 7.68 37 7.13 $4. l ess all ow for d.62 $9.978 -----------$2.1) $915 $109 $70 41% $83 48% $0 $38 $1.080 -----------$2.88 $5.0 14.1% $9.45 37 7.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 281: WFR Balance Sheet FILE: WFRwksh . Cash Boo k & Cash Value Book Value Per Share Cash Per Share Net Cash Per Share T angi ble Book value Q1 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1E Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q 3E Q4E Q1E Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E Q4E $980 $306 $217 43% $33 7% $0 $28 $1.42 $8.089 -----------$2.0 39% 46% 27% 49% 39% 0.940 ====== $6 $162 38% $68 $0 $187 44% $0 $18 $32 $473 $26 $46 11% $0 $0 $0 $275 $820 $35 $0.985 ====== $30.261 1.91 $8.225 $384 1.5% -18.40 $7.326 $1.985 ====== $6 $141 26% $65 $0 $210 38% $90 $69 $32 $613 $25 $42 8% $0 $0 $0 $190 $869 $36 $0.5 2.864 ===== = $6 $160 32% $53 $0 $164 33% $86 $60 $32 $559 $29 $60 12% $0 $0 $0 $204 $852 $34 $0.1 $0.884 == ==== $30.413 $1.5% 1.241 $292 $0 $0 $81 -----------$2.313 $1.3 $1.2 $988 $148 $202 47% $81 19% $0 $39 $1.5% 1.54 $5.50 $4.70 40 29.55 $5.345 $325 1.6 -1.1 $0.981 ====== $30.24 $4.53 37 7.290 1.6 2.4% 1.113 -----------$2.31 37 7.52 $4.58 37 26.980 ====== $6 $148 28% $54 $0 $168 32% $86 $43 $33 $537 $25 $57 11% $0 $0 $0 $238 $857 $35 $0.73 40 27.9 11.4% 1.5 42.4 49 5.2% 1.xls FYE: December BALANCE SHEET FILE: WFRwksh .5% 1.8% -19.32 $9.2 23.

7 156 % 2 6.0 29.0 42.0 1174 .0 800.0 140 .2 13 7.7 66.6% 12% 45% 14.6 118.1 250.0 0.3 103.9 97.2 2 4.2 0.5 17 1.0 282.0 11.3 3 7.2 159.0 273.9 8.6 37.8 9 0.1 25.0 6.0 4.6 20 .6 0.3 135% 0.0 250.0 168.1 2 50.6 65% 2.3 7.2 32.23 $ 71.5 % 24% 65% 25.78 -30% 949.8 57 .0 490.54 -8% 418.6 100.0 701.0 29.28 1.0 180.8 1 8.0 108.7 13 5.0 150.0 425.0 320.0 600 .5 5.1 20.0 30 0.25 $ 0.2 0.0 1.1 89.7 281.3% 16% 32% 16 .99 0 .1 9 $ 0.7 6 6.5% 25% 30% 25 .9 233.2 85.5 70.09 1 25.9 42.6 151.5 20.8 29 0% 2 61.0 32 5.0 193.9% All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports.0 143 .3 53.59 2.0 4.0 5.9 14 8.0 1 8.9 316.2 51% 0.1 111.0 61 .3% 17% 45% 18.0 1 19.3 764.5 146.0 38.19 281.4 20.0 7 .3 46.28 $ 0.5 18.0 4.0 27 0.0 1 .4 -31% 12.1 233.0 39 0.78 -4 8% Q4E 40.6 34.9 0.4 -4% 0.0 0.0 21.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 282: JASO Earnings Drivers FYE: Dec embe r Number of lines Na meplate capacity per line Annual Ca pacity (MW ) Qua rterly Capa city (MW) Poly/Wa fer Capa city Secured (MW ) Total Shipments (MW ) Total Pr oduction (MW ) Internal Produ ction (MW ) Jing long M.0 1 58.0 36 0.1 45.6 0.0 39.12 5% Fiscal 20 08 Q1 E 24.9 9 8.6 148 .3 1047 .9 32 0% 18.0 1.9 32 0% 0.1 5 1.1 5.25 -30% 1547 .3 1 75% 136 .2 14.7 863.3 13.0 38.7 2.6 0.3 4% 1174 .2 275.5 -2% 7 .0 3.6 7.7 17.5 1 60.1 77.8 67% 84 .7 51.0 67.2 21 % 70 % 21.0 4 1.8 12.0 4.0 1.0 0.7 796.94 1.1 1 20% 67.0 2 50.0 383.0 1 4.9 $ 0.18 $ 0 .8 61 .0 33.5 260 % 1.0 25.0 1.0 158.8% 10 % 35 % 1 1.3 1 82% 8.0 0.35 -3 0% Fiscal 2 010E Q2E Q3 E 40.0 34.2 50.8 1259 .72 1.2 51% 21.6 0.0 210.7% 5% 3 5% 6.0 27 5.83 -41% Fisca l 2009 E Q1E 36.1% -10% 55% -6 .6 37.0 17 .2 47.3 0.0 168.0 235. 2009 259 .6 4.31 6% 17.0 4.89 1.0 220.8 29.0 46.0 47.1 21.2 1 7% Fiscal 2 008 Q2 Q3 1 1.4 201.4 -3 6% 15.0 253.3 4.9 0.0 900.4 3.0 25 2.1 2 35.5 770.0 29.1 5.0 4.0 263 % 14 4.0 118.0 25.0 10 00.7 131.0 0.0 304.0 2.0 390.7 25.0 0.6 0.5% 17% 64% 18.0 269.9 650.1 130.3 8.6 42.0 25.3 0 .8 3 9.2 45.4 -9% 63.7 10.0 52.3 8.61 2.0 25.8 190 .2 8.0 4.3 5% 2 4.0 920 .8 14 .9 148.0 1.9 144.0 25.8 3 .0 1.0 225.0 3.0 1.28 -30% Fisc al 201 0E 1 42.20 1 26.0 99.2 220.2 15.2 9.1 2 1.0 29.5 75.3 121 % 0.0 25 .0 225.6% 6% 45% 9.1 5.2 5 5.0 1000.8 32.4 135.0 0.6 6 2 .20 $ 0.8 67% 0 .9 15.9 301.30 $ 0.1 5.0 150 .0 8.6 21.0 52.0 29.49 1.1 18 0.0 2.SETEK Ren esola Shund a GCL Toll ing/Service (MW ) Ce ll Inventory (MW) ASPs ($/W ) Y/Y (%) Product Revenue s Third party re ve nues Y/Y (%) Re lated party revenu es Total product revenue s Y/Y (%) Ser vic e r evenues Total revenue s Y/Y (%) Cost of reve nues Produ cts (Cost/W att) Produ cts (Si licon wafers) Jing long M.7 1 2.66 617.2 0 $ 0.66 1.6 172.0 2 5.4 115 % 294.0 10.0 490.0 1.0 4 5.5 32 5.0 19.0 2 10.0 118.0 3 .0 29.8 $ 66.0 149 .0 0.5 13.8 97.0 4.0 275.4 49.4 0.79 2.5 15.0 1 14% 42.1 -27% 195.0 4.2 2.5 41.2 0.2 26.6 37.4 0.3 1 84% 0.0 118 .0 12.7 19 .0 136 .7 641.18 $ 0 .0 148.0 135.5 -52% 118.SETEK Ren esola Shund a GCL Service Oth er (p ro cessing) Ce ll processing cost p er wa tt Total Gross Ma rgin Produ cts Service Total Q1 8.0 29.0 1 48.2 0.3 5% 0.2 0 $ 0.0 53 .6 37.0 2 9.6 3 7.6 7.1 5 0.2% 21 % 70 % 2 3.3 5.3 37.0 0.9 $ 0.8 % 21% 30% 21.3 121 % 20.0 3 83.7 79.42 6% Q4 24 .0 2 61.5 224 % 16.4 -3 6% 0.0 120 0.2 0.4 0.0 65.2 40.1 51 .2 1110 .5 210.3 112.1 99.0 471 .2 50.1 5.0 85.0 2 50.6 180.4 2 48.4 17 .5 989 .9 -3 2% 320.0 0.5 0% 728.4 241.4 -18% 0.27 $ 0.1 50% 33 6.6 41.0 45 .5 0.0 600.2 248.2 7 -30 % 44.3 155 .0 4.20 $ 0 .0 2 05.25 -30% Q4E 4 8.0 4 .1 38.0 35.1 2 81.57 1.3 200 % 304.2 267.0 285.0 2 5.92 -40% Fisc al 200 9E Q2E Q3E 27.8 152 .0 33 6.4 18.4 25.4 42.0 8.3 135% 24.0 0.3 4 8.4 6 5.0 312.4 7 .6 22.9 345. Barclays Capital estimates May 01.28 652.0 3.3 100.0 1.0 250.9 51 .0 25.0 15.4 -53% 0.6 0 .0 900.0 200.2 231.3% 2% 45% 7.5 285.9 53.5 27 .2 141% 701.3 0.6 171 .5% 1 2% 4 5% 14.0 390.0 195.8 592 .7 -4% 282.8 64 .0 1.0 1.0 50.0 294.2 20 .0 110.0 4.4 1 21% 25.2 27.0 1100.5 2.3 1 6.0 1110 .2 202 % 9.2 4 9.5 66.4 42.3 4 .4 -57% 10.0 25.2 2 9.0 106.0 1.8 12.1 40.7 9 .9 109.3 26 9.7 19.0 111 .1 5.0 25.4 36.6 37.82 -45% 36.5 3% 0 .8 277.0 6 8.8 53.

5% Q4E $345.0 $0.7 $10.5% 0.7% 1. 9 $5. 1 162.5 $100.0 $20.2% -27. 7 Q3E $58.8 7. 4% 12. 0) $7.9 I ncom e (l oss) before taxes I ncom e Tax Expense $23.0% 1. 5% $5. 9 $21.4 Fiscal 2010E Q2E $26.0 11. 6) $0.7% 9.6% 37.9 ($0.9% -32.6% 3.8% 5. 8 160.2) ($1.7 ($0. 0% $45. 0 ($3.0% 18.5 -46.8% 0.2 $281. 6 ($7. 72 $0.4% 5.8 Fi scal 2008E FYE : Decem ber Pro Forma EBITDA % Change Y /Y % Change Q/ Q % Sales LTM EBI TDA Q1E $25. 6 $3. 1% 27. 0) ($18.0) ($5.8 ($17.0 $0.5% 6.8 160. 9 Non operati n (income) expense: g I nt erest income (expens e) Ot her income (expens e) Forex gain (los s) Non operati n (income) expense g $1.0% 15.14 $0.4 $20. 3 $22.7) $21.3 $47.3 $31. 24 155.8 $43.5 21.3 $67. 2% 14.0 $64.9 $118. 0% -51.0% 263. 6% 10. 3% -4.6) $0.08 $0. 05) ($0. 0% $19. 33) $0. 0 $4.2 $1.5% $5. 67 155. 8 158.0 $0.0% 14. 5% 0. 0% Fiscal 2010E $180.7 $9.0 $0. 0% 25.0 ($2. 1% 74.0 $9.5% 4.5% 4. 05) 155. 5% 5. 4) $52.0) $0.7) $22.0 2.7 $4.3% 22.1 348.0) $0. 8% 100.8 All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports. 5 $45. 8 2.4) $0. 6 ($4.8 160.0 $9.1 Q4E $58. 0) $38.4 2.6% 21.0 $8. 0 $0.0% 0.4 15. 14 ($0.3% 0. 9 $10. 2009 .02 $0.8% $81. 3 12. 0 $1.259. 8 $67. 8 Bas ic inc ome (los s) per share Diluted income (los s) per share from Opera $0.6 $12. 3 ($8.6% -6.4% $180. 7 $68. 0 $0. General & Admin.5) $14. 3% 10. 4 1. 1 155. 4 $19.13 154.4 $71.0 $15. 5% 99. 2) $31. 0% ($31. 0 $10.7% 11.3 Q2E $33. 4% $2. 4 R&D Selling.8) $20. 25 $0. 3% 41.3% 10.7 $1.0 ($5. 4 $21. 30 ($0.0 $112. 26 155.8% -440.6 2. 5% 12. 2 $212.5) $0.6) $0. 0) $122.0 $0.0) ($38.0 $0.0 $17. 0 2. 2 $1.5) $21.0 ($0. 6 $132.5 7.5% $1. 9 ($5.7% 3.8) ($3.7 Q4E $80.3 $120. 2% 85.5% 10.7% 158. 1 $281.0 $5.0 $0.1) $25.5 Operating Income $23.8) -164. 5% 23.0 $8.0 $12.0 $10. 2 Net I ncome (loss) Preferred S hare Adjustments $0. 7 Capi tal Spending % of Sales Depreciation % of COGS FCF $9.9% $113.2% 175.5% 4.36) 155. 4 $2. 5% -0. 0 ($9. 07 $0. 0 $0.4) $94.8 $112. 10) ($0. 5% 18. 0 Stock options expense $1. 2 $19.0 $0.9 7.36 155. 0% Fiscal 2009E $85. 4% 180.0) $6. 6 $2. 30 $0.1 $4.3 177. 7% 3.0 $0. 8 $269.4 2. 6 2.0% ($39.5% 7.5 $19. 4% 49. 2% -7.8 160. 9% Q4E $360. 8% 6.0 $0.3% $122. 0% 39.5) $7. 05) ($0.3) ($0.0% 16. 3 Q3E $67. 7) ($23.8 ($7.2 $0.1 ($4.5% $13.7% -2.5 $1. 2 $42.0 $12. 9 60. 0% 21. 0 $10.2 $53. 8 -10656.0% 4. 9% 0.4 $33.0% 11.6% 3.5 -54.3% Q3 $312.0 3.6% 289. 2% 98. 27 155.0 $36.08 $0. 2% 6.01) ($0. 0% $102.0 $1. 3% 3.1% -9.0 $5.02) 155.5% $3. 0 $1.6 $1.01 $0.7% 9.3% 113. 5% ($36. 8 ($0. 8% 15. 2 ($2. 8% -62.2% 15.2% 0.8 160.2 $1. 27 $0.0 $0. 8 $75.6 $5. 8 160.0 $1. 6% -2. Barclays Capital estimates 260 May 01.6% 14.2 $39. 6 $159.7% 4.38 $0.2% 10.0 ($4. 3 Q4E ($12.1 $244.5% $5.4) $1.5 $7. 6 ($15.7 Fiscal 2010E $1.0 $651. 0 $11.2 $53.8 160. 8 -560.0% $7.2% 290. 7% 200.37 $0. 0) $0.9 2.6% $146. 6% 15.0 $0.3 $58. 9) $5.5 $63. 16) 155. 0 ($5. 8 ($0. 4 $248.8 -82.8% $14. 0 ($2. 06 155. 0 $2. 25 $0. 8) $116.9 $72.0 $0.6) $0.8 160.45 ($0.4 2.2 $1.0% $3.9% 34. 1 $2.2 $48. 6 Cos t of Goods Gros s Prof it $126. 4% 120. 2) $15.6% 22.01 155.5 $142.4% 5.3 $0. 6 $4.1 12. 7% Fi scal 2008E $796. Operating Expenses $0.2% 0. 1% 0.0% 10. 3) ($109.5 $4. 6% Fi scal 2009E Q2E $131. 0 $40. 0 ($18.0 $0. 0 7.9 ($15.8% 20.0 $5.2 219.8 $9. 1% 9.6 $144. 8 $13. 3% 3. 8% $103.0 $0. 7 $10. 6) ($82. 7% 140. 2% Q4 $143. 2 $7.3% 15.0% 17.4% -19.8% 114. 3 $0.4% -22. 7% 8. 6% 0. 0 $11.7 Q1E ($1.8 -66. 4 -6. 5 $180. 0 ($61.0% 18.6% 12. 1% 2.4% 17.0) $0. 7 -771.7) -106.0% ($42.8 160.6 $46.5% Q1E $77.0 ($5.3 ($0. 0 $0. 6 7. 0 -976.6% Q1E $301.7 7.0 $0.0% $75.36) $0. 6% 21. 5% $2.0% ($44.1% 15.3% -118.0 35.8% 17.3) ($6. 2 $1. 1 $9.2 $1. 5 $43.5 163.5 ($18.7 16. 0% -12. 0% 12. 0% 9.07 155.0 $2. 5) $27. 0) $3. 0 $0. 0 $0. 5% $5.14 $0. 70 EP S (ADS) Weight ed av erage shares used Avg Shares . 3 $0. 3% 0. 6 ($4.0 $39.0 $1.1 $1.8% -74.5% $5.01) $0. 0 $14.9% -8.9 1. 3 73. 0 $2. 6 $23.8 160.5 $3.2% $86. 6 $3.8 Fi scal 2009E Q2E $5. 0% $85. 5% $75.0 2. 4% 15.9% 15.0) $51. 0 ($0.01) ($0.0) $0. 0 ($2.6% 1.047.0 $11.1 69. 0 $11.4 ($20. 0 $0.8 $4.7% $3.1% $12.8 ($1.0 $0. 2 $1. 4 $12.1% -4.0 21. 0 $5. 1% 10. 7% 0.6 $138.5% $20.3 7. 4 $9.0 $0. 5 $13.7% 0. 5% $58.3% 14. 1% -0.1% 6. 0 $0. 0% 6. 28 $0. 2 $33. 4% 12. 5% Fi scal 14.2 63.8% 18.0 ($0.1 $27.9 182.6% Fiscal 2010E Q2E $281. 2 $1. 0 ($2.3 14. 8 160.13) ($0. 0% 12.8 7.8 169.8 2008E $113.0 6. 7 $30.3% 21. 6% 25.3% 0.3 $91. 0 $2.6% 13. 0 $10.7 473.Ful ly Dil uted (M) Percent of Sales Gros s Margin I nc remental Gross Margin R&D SG& A Operating I nc ome Net I nc ome Tax Rate $0.2 $248.2% 0.9% 15.01) 154.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 283: JASO Income Statement Fiscal 2008 FYE : Decem ber Revenue QoQ YoY Q1 $160. 0 $7.0% 64.6 $652.8) $57.1 7.3% 2.8% -5.2) $47.6 2.6% 19. 5% $5. 4 $2.8) ($5.8) ($7. 6% Q3E $316. 7 Q3E $22. 30 $0. 1% 1.0% $78. 4% Q2 $180.7% ($26.8 7.4% ($173.7) ($1.0 $52. 2% $1.9 37. 07 $0.1) ($1. 3) ($58. 6% $158.3% 52.3% Q3E $210.9 6. 0 $0.1% 124. 7 Q1E $15. 2 $1.1) $3.8% -86. 6% -1.8 -12. 0% ($159.0) $6. 5 1.6% 7. 10) 155.1 Fiscal 2009E $764.

0 $0.079 == ==== $329 $67 22% $53 17% $0 $78 $172 $6 $705 $161 $1 $185 -----------$1.28 $2.27) $4.5 $0.6% 26.5 $0.3 1. net Other non-current assets Total Assets L IAB.0 24 1.94 $0.4 3.61 $1.24 18 10.9 10.5 $437 30.0 $0 $10 $7 $23 $3 $8 $2 $7 $4 $63 $275 $41 $379 -----------$673 -----------$1.0% 28.0 $72 $10 $17 $19 $2 $3 $1 $2 $1 $128 $225 $21 $373 -----------$685 -----------$1 .0 $476 26.168 ==== == $296. Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted May 01.0 $222 $27 17% $21 13% $0 $52 $127 $27 $477 $85 $1 $71 -----------$634 ===== = $520 $25 14% $23 13% $0 $46 $148 $9 $770 $130 $1 $178 -----------$1 .6 56 0.5 9.114 ==== == $296.3 ($0.79 18 9.7 $418 30.4% 28.0 $72 $10 $17 $19 $2 $3 $1 $2 $1 $128 $225 $28 $380 -----------$787 -----------$1.1 $4 22 32. 2009 261 .00 14 14.36 1.9% NM NM $3.28 $2.08 $4.2 $269.6 20 0.0 $0.1% NM NM $4.28 $0 $6 $5 $3 $1 $3 $3 $0 $4 $25 $0 $0 $25 -----------$609 -----------$634 ===== = $0.5 $0.0 ($27.7 -1.6 $4.43 $3 .117 == ==== $303 $42 15% $70 25% $17 $61 $39 $13 $545 $278 $2 $303 -----------$1.8 -6.117 == ==== $2 96.0 36 1.9 37 1.2% -11.54 33 6.0 $72 $10 $17 $19 $2 $3 $1 $2 $1 $128 $225 $22 $374 -----------$696 -----------$1.08 14 12.93 $0.0 15 1.5 3.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 284: JASO Balance Sheet F YE: December BALANCE SHEET Assets Curr ent Assets: Cash and cash equivalents Accounts receivable.12 8 ===== = $310 $47 15% $79 25% $17 $61 $39 $13 $566 $297 $2 $303 -----------$1.91 2.067 ==== == $296.85 ($0.13 $0.7 $4 34 32.0 23.5 3.3 $641 40.5 $21.0% 0.7 $422 30.4 $3 .5 $0.89 $0.0% NM NM $4.0 1 16 24.1% -17.1% 39. & SHRHLDRS' EQUITY S-Term Debt Advances from third party customers Accounts payabl e to third parties Other payables to third parties Payroll & welfare payable Accrued expenses Accounts payabl e to related pa rties Other payable to rel ated parties Tax payable Total Cur rent L iab ilities: L-Term Debt Other non-current liabil iti es Total L iabilities Sha reholders' Equ ity T otal Liabilities & Shareh old ers' Eq uity T otal Debt % Chan ge Q/Q $ Ch ange Check-sum Performan ce Metrics Profitability Ratio s Return On Equity Return on Avg Equi ty Return On Assets Return On Net Assets Return On Sales Efficiency Ratios Sales / Total Assets A/R Days Sal es Out Inventory T urns Days of Inventory L iqu id ity Ratios Current Ratio Q uick Rati o Net W orki ng Capital ($M) Long-T erm Debt / Eq uity Debt/Capi tal T otal Debt / Equity EBIT DA/In terest EBIT DA.6 4.8 $4.8 -7.8% 30.0) $72 $10 $17 $19 $2 $3 $1 $2 $1 $128 $225 $19 $371 -----------$688 -----------$1.6% -5.17 14 12.0 $72 $10 $17 $19 $2 $3 $1 $2 $1 $128 $225 $25 $377 -----------$739 -----------$1 .32 $0.29 25 10.4% 39.96 $1.0 $0.30 1.9 $413 32.18 $1.067 ==== == $371 $21 28% $27 35% $17 $61 $39 $13 $550 $205 $2 $303 -----------$1.91 $1 .87 $0.5 3.61 1.3 $452 0.226 == ==== $296.2 $0.5% 27.6 29 1.7 $4.2% 43.058 == ==== $2 96.36 $1.7 34 0.8% 42.04 $4.0 $72 $10 $17 $19 $2 $3 $1 $2 $1 $128 $225 $27 $379 -----------$749 -----------$1.58 ($0.7 $5.5 3.30 $2.8 $739 39.3% -1.0% 28.9% 29.22 $3.27 $4.0 $0.5 $0.0 $72 $10 $17 $19 $2 $3 $1 $2 $1 $128 $225 $30 $382 -----------$844 -----------$1.22 1.47 $4.2 $6. net % Sales Inventories % Sales Value-added tax recoverabl e Advances to rel ated party suppli ers Advances to third party suppli ers Other current assets Total Cur rent Assets Net PP&E Intangib le assets.2% 29.5 4.20 $5.2 0.6 $4.3% 29.62 1.0 $72 $10 $17 $19 $2 $3 $1 $2 $1 $128 $225 $24 $376 -----------$738 -----------$1.0 30 Source: Company reports.6% NM NM $4.079 == ==== $2 69.1 $4.68 $1.02 $4.92 1.0 $0.4% 28.071 = ==== = $296.0% 0.6% -12.6 -11.0 $0.4) $0.35 $1.0% 35.6 34 0.0% 15.7% 40.35 1.9% 42.Capex/Interest Bo ok & Cash Value Book Value Per Share Cash Per Share Net Cash Per Share T angible Book va lue 19.12 8 ===== = $296.071 = ==== = $253 $69 20% $112 33% $17 $61 $39 $13 $564 $245 $2 $303 -----------$1.7 $414 32.08 14 15.0% 40.1% 43.19 20 18.28 1.060 ==== == $296.0 $72 $10 $17 $19 $2 $3 $1 $2 $1 $128 $225 $18 $370 -----------$697 -----------$1.4 3.1% -3.5% NM NM $4.114 ==== == $299 $45 15% $75 25% $17 $61 $39 $13 $550 $262 $2 $303 -----------$1 .0 $0 $13 $3 $8 $1 $2 $0 $2 $3 $31 $269 $88 $389 -----------$690 -----------$1 .058 == ==== $296 $42 20% $73 35% $17 $61 $39 $13 $541 $225 $2 $303 -----------$1.226 == ==== Q1 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1E Fisc al 2009E Q 2E Q3E Q4E Q 1E Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E Q 4E 14% 12% 14% 21% 14% (1%) 9% (0%) (1%) (1%) (37%) (4%) (23%) (34%) (20%) 13% (3 %) 8% 11% 15% (4 %) (7 %) (3 %) (4 %) (9 %) (1%) (7%) (1%) (1%) (1%) 7% 4% 5% 7% 6% 23% 7% 16% 20% 13% 1% 8% 1% 1% 1% 6% 9% 4% 6% 4% 20% 13% 14% 19% 13% 28 % 14 % 19 % 26 % 16 % 1.5 3.00) $4.50 18 10 .2 26 1.62 $1.83 ($0.0 $0.8 $439 28.6% 40.5 $0.68 1.0 18.052 == ==== $293 $52 36% $87 60% $17 $61 $39 $13 $561 $201 $2 $303 -----------$1.43 $1 .96 1.060 ==== == $340 $26 20% $45 34% $17 $61 $39 $13 $541 $213 $2 $303 -----------$1 .168 ==== == $329 $54 15% $90 25% $17 $61 $39 $13 $603 $319 $2 $303 -----------$1.0 $0.2 15 0.53 $4.06 $0.6% 30.4% 37.0 $0.5 $0.67 13 24 .052 == ==== $275.5 $0.92 $1.31 $3.02) $4.

5 170.0 100.4 Q4 350.94 75.4 Fiscal 2008 Q1E 400.35 0.0 50% 50% 155.0 50.6% 9.5 195.29 0.29 1.28 682.7 339.94 228.3 37.0 134% 50% 50% 1.03 0% 2% $ 4.0 40% 60% 2.3 169.0 40% 60% $ $ $ $ 2.0 2 50.5 15.94 290.34 $ 1.0 308.5 225.8 320.72 $ 1.97 $ $ $ $ 354.6 50% 50% 3.94 137.1 300.54 $ 2.94 118.04 1.97 799.0 62.5 44.2 19.72 0.4 Q4E 750.0 180.0 298.98 1.7 12.0 231.0 65.2 191.0 168.0 16.2 321.0 40% 60% 2.15 0.0 180.0 90.5 305.0 150.58 -31% .89 $ 1.5 14.0 186.9 14.50 0.01 $ 1.0 187.50 0.0 200.6% 9.5 20.09 $ 3.9% 95.0 46% 54% $ 3.0 16.96 0.5 300.6% 9.5 87.94 $ $ $ $ 216.8 45.3 15.5 45% 55% 3.02 0.94 $ $ $ $ $ 204.97 $ $ $ $ 184.0 45.87 7% 7% 1% -16% $ 2.4 19.6 31.5 65.4 13.00 203.3 185.0 190.5 39.4 23.0 24.0 125.7 136.0 180.0% 50.0 550.7% 290.8% -6% -6% Source: Company reports.4 100.0 16.40 0.72 0.5 156.94 16.0 190.6 45% 55% 3.35% -38% -29% -33% -20% -5% -2% -5% $ 2.4 15.0 160.33 0.6% 9.0 100.4 14.97 -24% 75.0 16.0 90.8 667.86 0.6% 9.2 26.0 16.0 45.1 1225.46 0.2% 47.3 196.0 36.0 135.6% 9.2% 140.7 116.0 Revenues P V Modules O ther COGS G ross P rofit G ross Margin (%) O utput (MW) S ilicon Breakdown S pot Contract Costs ( $/W) S pot Contract P rocessing Costs Chec k S ilicon Prices ($/kg) S pot Contract Conversion Ef ficiency G rams/Watt ASP ($/Watt) P V Modules y /y (%) q/q ( %) $ $ $ $ $ 120.0 2 12.39 343.46 0.4 354. 2009 .02 0.9% 180.5 164.86 0.9 Fiscal 2009E Q1E 850.96 -20% -23% -26% -27% -24% -10% .95 0.7 271.61 $ 2.0 137.50 0.3 15.7 13.7 15.0 Q4E Fiscal 2010E 900.97 831.6% 80.6 11.0 145.64 0.0 85.97 $ $ $ $ 369.2 89.0 50% 50% 1.73 $ 2.0 212 .94 $ 3.0 138 0.8% 201.54 0.94 90.0 19.5 89.40 $ 1.4% 66.6% 9.5 121.3 151.9 12.0 80.0 82.5 4.0 40% 60% 2.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 285: TSL Earnings Drivers FY E: December Annual Capacity (MW) Q uarterly Capacity (MW) Available Capacity (MW) Q1 200.5 31.0 275.42 $ 2.5 Fiscal 2008E Q2 Q3 250.8 279.3 7.0 70.1 25.35 0.6% 9.4 45% 55% $ 3.4 15.9 151.0 58.0 Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E 400.9 11.0 16.3 115.97 $ $ $ $ 218.8% 29.9 41.97 $ $ $ $ 336.0 225 .45 0.45 0.5 244.04 $ 1.4 203.03 0.18 $ 2.7 15.3 230.6% 9.94 150.0 50% 50% $ $ $ $ 1.5 16.4 117.77 $ 1.0 120.0 16.0 Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E 850.3% 68 0.0 75.6% 9.5 16.2 15.3% 160.97 $ $ $ $ 245.02 $ (0.81 0.95 $ 4.40 1.42 $ 3.8 9.94 0.00) 239.60 1.6% 57.98 1.0 132.0 87.6% 9.0 70.0 100.3 131.0 50% 50% 1.0 180.0 100.94 143.0 1000. Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted 262 May 01.6% 9.0 16.8 19.0 16.40 0.1% 200.0 44% 40% 60% $ 2.5 170.8 47.00 228.6 288.2 22.0 298.07 0.2% 65.0 160.0 203.0 80.48 0.0 16.

0% 1.9 $0.8% -54.3% $79.4% $74.2 ($7. Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted May 01.0% 13.0% $4 8.0 $66.0 ($0.0 Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E $7.7 $0.3% 12.7 $18.06 33.91 ($21.4% 0.68 $0.5 $50.7% 0.5% 82.9 $20.5 $7.1 $0.1 $12.4% 16.2% 5.4 $30.0 $18.7% 1.4 11.1% 0.0 $17.0 $16.4% $298.4 50.1% 76.3 $218.0% ($14.3% 3.1) ($0.0% Fiscal 2009E $48.4 23.4% 5.1 $195.6 $31.7 $62.4% 0.0 $54.6% -29. And other costs Op erating Expen ses Op erating Income Non o peratin g (income) exp ense: Interest i ncome (expense) Oth er income (expense) Non o peratin g (income) exp ense Income (loss) before ta xes Income Tax Exp ense (Benefit) Net Inco me (lo ss) Net Inco me (lo ss) from d isco ntinu ed operations Net inco me available to ord inar y shareh old ers Basic income (loss) per share (i) Dilu ted income (l oss) per share from Operations W eighted average shares used Avg Sh ares .0 $4.0 $5.3) $11.5 $17.7% 8.6 $62.1 % 17.4 $7.06 $0.7% 23.4% 3.5% 0.3% -48.7 $1.4 $46.1% 6.28 25.9 $2.7) $0.26 $0.4% 12.0 $45.0% 69.1 $225.6) ($10.3 $151.2 $354.1 $62.7% 9.0 $1 4.0 Q4E $2 2.5 $15.Fully Diluted (M) Percent of Sales Gross Margi n Incremental Gross Margi n R&D SG&A Operating Income Net Income T ax Rate 25.82 $0.6 $15.0 ($36.9% 18.3 $3.3% 1.1 ($3.1 ($21.5 $17.0 $3.5% 12.04 28 .9 $0.0% 16 .5% -9.5) $0.44 31.7% 14.7 $32.1 ($5.7) ($0.6% 111.2) ($4.9 175.6% 0.9% 43.5 $65.5% 18.0) ($13.4% $119.2 ($0.9% 9.3% 13 .2% 19.0 $62.4 $0.2% 5.7% 7.0 $48.42 $0.5 30.1 ($5.2% 24.52 29.0 Fiscal 2009E $799 .0) $0.0 $2.1) ($6.0% ($19.0 $1.2 $155.5) $2.6% 1.0 $19.5% 0.8% 4.65 $0.2 $74.8 $2.0 $13.05 $0.0 $14.0 28.9% 4.2 $81.9) Q1E $4.0% 7.0% 5.6% 59.7% 10.03) ($0.0 $1 4.1% $97.0 $22.5% 22.9% 67.1 $4.5) $0.08 27.0 $5.8 Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E $336.1 $0.6 $61.0% 12.5 $2. 2009 263 .8 -3.8% -0.0 0.5 82.3 % $275.2 Fiscal 2008E Q2 Q3 $29.0) Q4E $10.51 25.0% 0.9% 12.4% 8.4 $2.6% 8.0 $62.2% 14.1 $0.4% 25.0 $61.2% 6.5 $17.1% -0.5 $1 7.8% 18.3 -75.9 Q4E $245.9 $3.1 ($5.0 24.0 ($0.2% 16.0 $2.9% 7.4% $36.1) $13.1 32.7 -76.2% 16.2) Source: Company reports.7 $16.0% Fiscal 2009E $74.0% ($175.97 25 .6 $3.0 $3.0% 12.7% 0.4% 7.1 27.0 $25.6 $0.0% $18.0 -74.4 $1.3 $37.28 $1.0 $61.4 F iscal 2008 Q1 Q2 Q3 $120.0% 7.0 $20.9% 1.0 $4.1% 6.0) $0.3 Q4E $369.1 25.0 12.0 3.9 $18.5 $2.0 $24.0 $15.0) $34.1% -133.0 $5.5 $0 .04 $34.4 $62.7 $0.1 $10.2% 12.5 $20.0 $18.3 $0.1% 2.4 $7.39 F YE: December Pro Forma EBITDA % Chan ge Y/Y % Chan ge Q /Q % Sales L TM EBITDA Capital Sp ending % of Sales Depr eciatio n % of COGS F CF Op s Est.6 $11.8% 18.7) ($0.6 $25.2) ($4.0 $0.9) $12.1 26.1% 58 .1% 4.9% 5.4% 12.2 $0.4 ($2.4% 7.3% -46.7 $204.61 $0.5 Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E $18.1 $0.9 $132.5 $100.5% 44.0% 14.0% F iscal 2008 $113.7 $25.0 $22.4 $72.380.9 $0.1 ($3.45 $2.6% $1.9 $1.4 3.0% -30.1 31.6 $0.7% 83.0) $0.27 28.1 $0.0% 7.5 $2.4 $3.03) 25.85 24 .1% $69.4% 3.0% 11.5 $2 2.7 4.9 $18.1% $91.2% $6.5% $13.8 $13.6 $17.3% $51.0 $21.8 Q4 Q1E $216.0% ($69.2% 3.3% 6.80 25 .3% 8.0 41.4 $0.5 $2.0% 7.8 3.4 $1.0% 0.3 $2.1 ($3.3 ($0.3 $16.0 $21.7 $19.3 F iscal 2008 $831.8 $45.2 $19.5) ($37.3 $13.5 ($0.9% 113.5 Q4E $5.0 $70.03) 27.4 $250.01 26.3 -36.1 ($3.4 $19.1 26.9% 12 .4% 20.9 $4 1.0 $2.1% 1.5 $54.0 $13.2) ($57.2 $29.9 -72.8% 5. G eneral & Admin.6% $343.9 $3.68 25. (PF EBITDA + NI -Capex) Q1 $20.4 $117 .1 30.8 $47.9 $1.8% 0.0 18.4 $0.1 $67.0 $3.9% 12.13 25.0 Q1E $25.0% 6.8% 6.8% 5.1% 5.4 23.4% 4.1% 5.7 Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E $184.1 28.9% 35 .1 $26.5 $164.0 0.7% -80.9% $6.4% 62.6 672.0 114.5) $0.5 $16.1% $89.4 $0.1% 7.6) 113.0% ($9.0 $23.0 $69.4% 183.67 31.4 $64.5) $0.5 $8.7) $0.7% 146.3% 13.4 21.4 ($6.8 72.0 25.7% 5.7% 7.8 $0.4 Fiscal 2010E $1.8 $2.3 128.4% 0.1 $0.3% $76.1% 252.0 Q1E $320.4 $15.9% $682 .1 30.0 $16.0 $5.6% 8.7 -25.08 $0.0 $3.0% 19.8% 4.5 $1 6.52 $0.1% $0.46) $0.1 $53.9% -79.2 2.19 ($12.03) ($0.63 32.7 $10.0 $308.9 $13.4% 12.1 $0.4% 0.3% 9.2) 48.2 $0.4% 0.6% 0.50 $0 .1 ($5.3 $2.4 $0.2 $290.2 $0.5 $0.4% 0.9 $26.1% 11.5 $31.0 $7.6 $20.9 $2 2.2% 260.1 $1.5% 12.0% ($25.1 ($5.8% 5.0 $12.8) ($0.9) $0.2% 0.0 $17.9% $160.4 $17.0 $19.6% 171.3% 6.1 14.2% 3.2 $156.0 25.3 12 .4 $0.9% 7.7% -24.3 $2.2 $23.0 $0.4 $0.7 $1.7 19.1% 40.6% $667.8) $50.6% 22.7% $195.0 $32.2% 42.7) ($44.7 $20.0 $5.0) $6.9 $186.0% 14.8% 8.4% $203.5 352.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 286: TSL Income Statement F YE: December Revenu e QoQ YoY Cost of Goods Gross Profit R&D Selling.0) $0.8% $0.0 $7.0) $0.3) ($7.0 $12.4 74.0 $1 9.2% 14.8% 9.0 $15.8 450.1 $28.7% $113.225.9 $2.4 $1.

-----$708 $865 ====== ====== $260.4% 83.-------$940 $907 $916 $930 $950 $1.2% 101.8% 91.0 14. & SHRHLDRS' EQUITY S-Ter m Debt Accr ued expens es Trade accounts payable % Sales Other payables Advance payments from c ustomers Income Tax payable Other curr ent liabilities Total Current Liabilities: L.32 $3. net Deferr ed inc om e tax assets Other non current ass ets Total Assets LIAB.94 55 6.52 ($8.4 0% $0.-.78 ($11.0 $396.4 0% $0.0 52 0.28 $16.28 $16.---.0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 --.3 $16.67 7% 2% 3% 4% 3% 0.85 11% 11% 5% 5% 4% 1.---.6% 57.94 Q1 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 $136 $49 $111 38% $102 35.58 $5.84) $15.0 $369.---------.0 Q4 Q1E Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E Q4E Q1E Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E Q4E $38 $60 $126 $126 $80 $88 67% 43% $73 $118 60.0 $17.26 $2.------.0% -6.4 0% $0.4 -9% ($40.80 ($10.---------.0 52 0.39 Source: Company reports.18) $15.1% $4 $69 $0 $14 $485 $355 $7 $3 $116 ------.5% -1.9 2% 8% 1% 1% 1% 0.---------.8% $4 $11 $64 $59 $0 $0 $5 $11 $391 $471 $245 $294 $6 $7 $1 $2 $64 $91 ---------.0 $396.0% 45.6 $35 31.88 30% 19% 13% 15% 11% 1.93) ($2.0 $396.---------.20 35 8.9% -4.-.3% 89.-.26 37 5.8 15% 13% 7% 7% 6% 1.0 $396.5 0.--------.-.--.----.---------.sum P erformance Metrics P rofitability Ratios Return On Equity Return on Av g Equity Return On Assets Return On Net A ssets Return On Sales E fficiency Ratios S ales / Total Assets A /R Days Sales Out Inventory Turns Days of Inventory Liquidity Ratios Current Ratio Quic k Ratio Net Working Capital ($M) Long-Term Debt / Equity Debt/Capital Total Debt / E quity E BITDA/Interest E BITDA.060 $1.-.067 ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== $249 $18 $63 29% $0 $2 $4 $1 $336 $148 $23 $507 $249 $18 $30 20% $0 $2 $4 $1 $304 $148 $23 $475 $249 $18 $37 20% $0 $2 $4 $1 $310 $148 $23 $481 $249 $18 $44 20% $0 $2 $4 $1 $317 $148 $23 $488 $249 $18 $49 20% $0 $2 $4 $1 $322 $148 $23 $494 $249 $18 $96 30% $0 $2 $4 $1 $369 $148 $23 $541 $249 $18 $101 30% $0 $2 $4 $1 $374 $148 $23 $545 $249 $18 $106 30% $0 $2 $4 $1 $380 $148 $23 $551 $249 $18 $111 30% $0 $2 $4 $1 $384 $148 $23 $555 $0 $0 ---------.067 ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== $396.060 $1.0% 43.017 $1.59) $15.--------.8 19.---.3% -5.7 55 0.7 0.--------.0 $0.2 40 0.------.4) $0.70) ($14.2% 47.4 ($14) 30.9% 43.5 1.0 $0.0 $396.82) ($17.------.---------.5 -2.0 $68 34.25 ($11.9 $15.-.0 $0.----.----$966 ====== $289 $18 $49 17% $0 $9 $7 $0 $372 $147 $14 $533 $0 ------.94 ($4.Capex/Interest Book & Cash Value B ook Value Per Share Cash Per Share Net Cash Per S hare Tangible Book value 14% 11% 7% 8% 11% 0. net % Sales Inventories % Sales Other receiv able.46) $16.1.5% 86.36 ($12.3 ($57) 29.7 64 0.0 13.8 1.0% 47.7% -2.017 $1.8% -8.Term Debt Other non-c urrent liabilities Total Liabilities Preferred shares Shareholders' Equity Total Liabilities & Shareholders' Equity Total Debt % Change Q/Q $ Change Check.9 18% $67.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 287: TSL Balance Sheet BALANCE SHEET FYE : December Asset s Current Assets: Cash and cash equivalents Pledged bank deposits Accounts receivable.-------$940 $907 $916 $930 $950 $1.11) $15.0 $84 34.-----$708 $865 ====== ====== $245 $9 $46 39% $0 $2 $3 $0 $306 $15 $6 $327 $351 $14 $56 27% $0 $14 $3 $0 $439 $18 $8 $465 $132 $153 $111 $88 $78 $32 -$28 -$84 -$155 $45 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $105 $91 $111 $131 $147 $128 $134 $142 $148 49% 60% 60% 60% 60% 40% 40% 40% 40% $86 $76 $92 $109 $123 $192 $202 $213 $222 39.34 37 5.8 $32 4.07 ($12.0 $113 34.8 0.3 69 1.1% 50.0 $396.-.12) ($15.4 12.6% 68.-.8 1.----.4 2% 11% 1% 1% 1% 1.16 $1.--.7% -0.27 $16.5 $16.----.2% -1.5% .0 $0.0 $0.85 $1.8 0.92 44 9. net Prepayment to suppliers Deferr ed E xpenses Other curr ent assets Total Current Assets Net PP&E Intangible assets.9 1.4 52% $88.------.7 (1%) 11% (0%) (0%) (0%) 0.1 ($118) 28.94) $16.6 2.0 -4.-------.--------.0 $396.24 (1%) 14% (0%) (0%) (0%) 0.------.0 $0.9% 40.6 12.2 42% $108.--------.5% 47.2 $15.7 $0.7 0.9 $63 33.9 41 0.9 74 1.24 $4.----.---------.32) $17.88 $2.8% 91.9 1.-.6% 50% 50% 50% 50% 60% 60% 60% 60% $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $42 $42 $42 $42 $42 $42 $42 $42 $42 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $420 $372 $366 $380 $400 $405 $360 $323 $266 $358 $373 $388 $388 $388 $450 $513 $575 $638 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $133 $133 $133 $133 $133 $133 $133 $133 $133 --.26 ($10.34) $16.----.0 $0.40) $16.0% -7.4 0% $0.4% 46.9 $56 34.9 53 0.5% 48.-----$381 $400 ---------.0 $16.--.4 0% $0. 2009 .4% -9.58 $16.32 13% 5% 6% 7% 6% 1.2 59 0.-------.2 1.-------$433 $432 $435 $442 $456 $477 $490 $509 $511 --.29) $15.8 0.81 55 7.4 1.88 ($10.30 37 5.6 $0.0 $396.0 0.0 $85 3.16 17% 13% 8% 8% 8% 0.8% 77.4 0% $0.---------.---.0% 92.9 62 0.-------.39 37 6. Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted 264 May 01.7% 91.39 ($0.-.4 0% $0.---.1 $15.27 $16.---------.67 55 7.54) ($9.7% 77.9 $78 32.-----.----$433 ------.-.3 $15.-----.03 55 6.-----.67 $4.---.8 $0.6 0.4 0% $0.----$966 ====== $436.7% 81.035 $1.7 4.26 17% 9% 8% 8% 6% 1.68 61 4.2% -8.-.1 $15.2% 44.94 39 5.------.035 $1.--------.0 $0.27 $5.8 63 0.1% 47.

9% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 250 6. 3 66. 0 150. 77 $ 154. 0 183.0 206. 16 -53.7% 1. 0% 2.40 1. 32 $ $ $ $ 84 6. 0 Fiscal 2010E Own Waf er Sales OEM To tal P roduction (MW) 45.94 -5. 23 $ 92.37 0. 0 950. 5 $ 14.82 1.0 206.06 0.57 -5.2% 2. 1% 0. 6 174. 0 25. 0 100.0% 0. 6 119. 5 225.50 0. 0 0.0 175. 43 $ $ $ $ 320 6. 8% 0. 0 825. 1 $ 150.8 178. 0 850. 3 $ 11. 3 $ 11. 0 63% 170. 0 250.0 0. 9 58. 2 17. 0 690. 0 0. 0 $ 8. 7% 114. 02 $ 153. 80 $ 152. 3 $ 9. 0 225. 89 -2.0 150.72 28.60 0.0 9. 60 -4. 5 57. 2% 0. 0% 0.39 2. 9 752. 65 -3. 8 F iscal 2009E Q2E Q3E 825. 87 0. 0 537. 0 825. 6 123. 0 0. 3 900. 0 0.1 164. 32 $ $ $ $ 85 6.0 0.3 Q4E 825. 0 740.6% 1.5 70.5 595.0 215.3 825.94 0.33 134. 1 189. 0 35. 5% 0. 3 15. Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted May 01.0 0.51 0.96 $ 144. 3 121. M) 2.40 $ $ $ $ 175 6.87 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 145 6. 74 2. 0 110. 000. 4 97. 0 25.0 825. 6 352. 0% 1.0 620.8 136. 8 Q4 645. 3 14. 0 25.3 33. 0% 0. 1 1.32 $ $ $ $ 80 6.32 0. 95 $ 136.6 117.0 125. 99 -5. 8 12.0 780.5 173. 5% 1.0 43. 3 21.0 9. 0 $ 10.1 1.6 581.5 22.32 $ 28.1 1. 09 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 95 6.0% 0. 32 $ $ $ $ 75 6.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 288: SOL Earnings Drivers FY E: December Annual Capacity (MW) E ffective Capacity Quarterl y Cap aci ty (MW) Q1 378. 0 206.6 82. 3 66. 0 205. 36 $ $ $ $ 130 6.0 9. 0 $ 101.0 161.67 -3. 6 61.5 16.2% 2. 8 88.0% $ $ $ $ $ 240 6. 3 Fi scal 2010E Q2E Q3E 825.83 $ 149. 48 0. 6 24. 0 475.63 -3. 73 0.6% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 110 6. 0 15.45 84. 0% 0.1 9. 52 -5.5% 1.2% 1. 8 125. 0 0.60 0. 45 0.5% 1. 94 -19. 53 0.1 1.78 0. 70 47.4 $ 8. 0 862. 2009 265 . 7 172.0 200.0% 0.8 156. 52 0. 8 $ 30. 0 523 148. 4 169. 5 670.92 -2. 66 0.0 25. 8% 0.36 $ $ $ $ 121 6. 0 $ 9. 7 102. 0 180. 0 206.54 -5.0 191. 0% 0. 2 32.47 0.19 -8. 0 175. 30 -40. 4 8. 5 Fi scal 2008 Q2 Q3 450. 3 Fi scal 2009E Q1E 825.0% 0.0 101.0 150. 0 0. 4% 0. 36 $ $ $ $ 100 6. 4 114.0 25. 0 190.8 288.0 205. 1 215.2 13.3 183. 0% 0. 0 100. 51 10. 4% 0. 56 -15. 0 100.0 25. 2 $ 162.39 1.0% 0.2 16. 5% 0.3 Fi scal 2008 Q1E 735.3% 0.9 24.3 158.16 -27.0 825. 0 48% ASP s ($/W) Own Waf er Sales Q/Q % OEM Q/Q % P roduct Revenues Own Waf er Sales OEM To tal Revenues ($.6 187.5 $ 88. 70 -10.6% 2. 73 0.7 -82.4 $ 14. 0 575.0 206.78 5.0 414 112.9 16.2 180.5% Source: Company reports. 7 $ 14. 9 191.77 $ 79. 0 8. 0% 0.9 31. 0 378 94. 0 $ 162.6% 0.04 -5. 2 603.1% 1. 66 -5. 89 $ 151. 5 Cost of revenu es Blended Silicon P rice ($/ kg) Sil icon consumpti on (g/ W) Sil icon cost per wat t Non-silicon cost per watt Total Co sts per Watt Own Waf er Cogs OEM COGS Overall Cost o f Revenu es Gross Margi n $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 216 6. 2 21. 36 1. 0 162.0 11. 0 $ 160.0 123. 5 168.8 $ 8. 9 75. 10 -8.3 1. 0 0. 57 0.0 231.0 $ 157. 0 $ 14.14 114.0 153.36 1. 56 10.0% 0. 7 690. 0 25.0 Q4E 1.

3) $9 .4 120 .04 70 .7% 5.0 4) ($0 .0% ($4.8 ($ 144.0 $1 3.1) $0 .5 $ 26.6 13 7.6 $ 0.6 $14.0% 6.4% 21.0 $6 .40 $0.8 -3.6 ($6 .7% 24 .5 $6.42) ($0.4% 11 .8 $ 0.8 $18 3.7% 31 .0 1 69.5% -85 .6 14 0.5 13 9.5% $9 7.1% 2.6 -107.1 % 147.3 71 .3 $ 10.3% $4.4% -6.2 $1 1.0 1 $ 0.9 $17.6 Q4E $ 17.5 24.6 ($10.0 ($6 .7 $22.8% 0.3% 8.20 $0 .4 % 1 4.0 5) ($0 .8 $3 .7% 1 .0 ($3 .5 $1.0 -4.0) $0 .1) $1.8% 3 8.0% 3 08.4 % 9.7 $27 .5% 1 2.6 ) $28.9 $2 .9 124 . Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted 266 May 01.0 $ 29.8 ) ($1 .1% 1 2.9 Q4 $ 158. Gene ra l & Admi n.8) Fisc al 20 09E Q2E $4.9% 3.6% 1 2.0% $3.1% 15 .2 ) ($0.5 $ 14.2 ($46.2 3.9% 8.2 Fisca l 200 8 Q2 Q3 $ 173.5 Q3 $4 2.2 2.0% 6 7.4 169 .1 $180 .0% $5 39.3 1 40.9 $ 0.0% ($7 9.0% $5.40 $0.9 $3 6.06) ($0.8 13 9.7 ) Q4 E $9.6 1 43.8 $9.0% 16 .2 $4 2.0 1 $0 .4 $2.31 $0.0 $0 .03) 69 .4 % 12 .8) $3.8% 3.2 $11.7 29 .0 ($0 .4 $1 .2 $1 2.8 $0.4) $0.5 $0.0 $0 .9 22.1 $0 .0 ($0 .11 $ 0.4% Fisca l 2 010 E $67.16 $0.7 2.6% 7 .6 $0.1% 1 1.9% 14.7% 28 .7 % 32 .6 $18 7.2 2.11 $ 0.2 14.6 69 .9 ($0 .4) ($ 126.0 2) ($0 .4 $ 13.9% -4 21.8 % 1.3% $ 41.0% $3.4 ) $7 .0 $0.6 13 7.6% -1.4) ($2.4% 1 4.8% 12 .9 6 9.0 $ 0.0% 1 2.09 $ 0.6) ($0.4% 1.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 289: SOL Income Statement FYE: D ecem ber R evenue QoQ Yo Y C ost of Goo ds Gross Pro fi t R &D Se llin g.2% $ 288.6% 22 .5 $ 12.0% $3 .1 ($0.4% 7.8% 0.3 % $68 4.8 ($ 130.5% $3 .5 2.6% $ 53.1% 1.1) $3 2.6 139.5% $3 .0% $3 .5% 5.6 % -8.0 $ 19.6% 12 .0% 13 .1) $1 4.5 $ 13.8 2 .0 2) 69.3 1 42.0 65.0% -79 .9% 3.1 Source: Company reports.1% -27 .5) Fisca l 2 009E $6 03.6) ($1 .6 1 41.4 $3.5 $56. 2009 .84 ) ($1 .1 -76 .8 $2.1 % 2.3 2.2 % $123 .2 % $2.0 2.6% ($116 .7% 20 .2% -2.0 $24.5 $4.3% 8.5 $32.0 $0.3 $ 0.8 71 .1% 1.0% ($4.3% ($2 7.1) $6 5.0 3 12.11 $ 0.7 $0 .8 2.8 $8.2) ($0.0 $6.Fully Diluted (M) Pe rcent of Sale s Gross Ma rgin Increme nta l Gross Margin R &D SG&A Opera ti ng In come N et Income Tax Rate Q1 $1 23.0% 5.4 7 .0 $6.5% $5.7 % -20 1.7 $16 0.6 1 40.8 1 43.1) Q1E $ 114 .5% 2.6 -26 .9% -0.0 Q2 $3 9.1 ) $3 8.0) $0.6 1 42.37 $0 .8 1 41.8 $9 .8 70 .6 1 40.05 $ 0.1) $3.8) $0.1 $35.7 $ 12.84) ($0.4 % 10 .4 % -16 .5% 5.5 Q4 ($ 135.4% $95 .7% 24 .2 $ 15.4% 1 4.5 8.0 2) 68.2 Fisca l 2 008 $67 0.2 7.8 ($0 .2 $6.0 $23 .0 2) ($0 .0% 2.2 % -4.7% 17 .0) $0 .4% 1 2.8 8.3% $18.8 $ 0.6 ($6.2 $1 76.0 2 $0 .3% 3 .7) ($0 .2 2.05 71 .3% 3.8 $3.4 ) $6 .5 -10.39 $0 .0 ) $0 .0 ($0.0 $6.0% 24 2.1 127.8) 4.9% 2.7% 12.4 Fisca l 2 010 E $7 52.6 13 8.9 139.3 13 8.5 8 2.6 63 .4% 4.1 $2 3.8% 5.8 18 .0 $0.1 ) ($4 .0% ($ 174.0 ($0.7 ($1.4 $ 26.9 ) ($0.9 % 9 .7 $4 .8 69.0 $5.2% 2.4) $7 .5% $3 .4 Fisc al 20 09E Q2E Q3E $136 .6 -27 .5% 21 .5) $0.3 1 40.2% -89 .7 $ 3.5 6 4.9 $54.10 $ 0.6 ) ($4 .9 $4 5.7 $ 12.9) ($1 7.6 ) ($0 .0 5) ($0 .4 1 0.3 $1 3.4% 8 4.0 $30.0% 1.1 ($24.5 $0.3 $0 .9% $15 7.2 ($59.4 % $4.3% $10.0 $7 .9 % 18.0 ) $0 .3 $0 .1 Fisca l 200 8 FYE: D ecem ber Pr o Forma EBITDA % Change Y/Y % Change Q/Q % Sales LTM EBITDA C apital Spending % of Sales D epr eciation % of COGS FCF Ops Es t.5% 4 8.84 ) ($0 .5 ($5.8 $8.8 $1.8 ($ 1.7 % -6.2 3.0 ($3.8 7.2 Q1 E $ 17.6 ($6.1% 7.8 $46.6% 3.6 ($6.4 3.47 $0 .7% 9.6 $162 .1 $17 .8 $ 10.7 $8.2 Q3 E $ 16.5 ($2.0 27.1 2.5% $12.6 $4.09 $ 0.0 $6 .5% $68 .7% 2 89. (PF EBITDA + NI -C ap Q1 $26 .3% 1.3% 1 1.4 25 2.0 $0.0) $0.0 62.7% 7.03) ($0.2 61 .3 70 .2 $3 .5 -83 .9 $1 10.0 28.2 $ 13.14 57.0% $2 .92 ) 68.8 Q4 E $172 .7% -82 .0 1 $ 0.9% -7.3 $ 11.7 % 32 .9 ($3.6 13 9.1 33 .1 2.0 $6 .9% ($4 9.8 $9.8% 1.2% $3.0 ($ 141.10 $ 0.8% $ 59.5 Q1 E $189 .19 60.7% ($21 0.4% 2.0 $1 8.0 4) ($0 .9 290 .0 1 70.6 ($6.6% 6.0 $24.0 $0 .4) $1.4% 12 .1% -4.4% 2.2% 7.23 68.8% 7.7% 0.1 1 80.4% $153 .8% 5.9 $8.4% 1 5.4% 3.5% $3 .8 $3.2 $0.0% $11.9% 3.1) $2.1% -2.0 $0.3 18.0% 19 .3 $3.4) $ 13.1 139.5 $ 14.6 ($6 .4% Fisca l 2 009E $28.6% 4.8 68.2% 9.5% $ 124.9 % -21 .2% 1.7 $ 14.3% 54.2) $ 14.4) ($0.3 $64.0% ($6 0.5 2 008E ($27.0 $0 .0 ($1.6% 5.7) Q3E $1 0.8 % $2.0 $6 .1 $ 14.0 $0.4% $ 130.8 $55.2% 47 .1 $2.0 % -2.5 $ 14.0) $ 0.4 % 1 1.2% 9 4.4% 16.3% 3 4.0 13 7.6 ($6 .7 ) $7 1.1 $41.0 ($4.92 ) ($0 .0 $6.1% 6 5.05 71 .3 Q4E $19 1.04 $ 0.0 $ 27.8% 2.1 -89 .1 ) $13.6 296.4) $22 .1% 8.46 $0 .6 ($6 .0 ($2.6% $ 28.7% 5.4 ) ($53.7 $0.8 ) Q1E $4.4 7.8 13 7.9% 21 .0 $8 .7 $5.1 7.11 $ 0.5% 5.0 $8 .1 % -1 03.0 $6 .0) $0 .7) ($2 .8) $0.7% $6 41.5 $ 169.0 $ 215.9 24 .4% Fisca l 10.7 ($14.4 % 2.8% 12.05 $ 0.84) ($0.2) $4.06 $ 0.1% 22.0 2 $0 .1 ($0.5% 65 .1 56 .8 70.1% 3.28 $0.0% ($2 9.3 69.8 68.8 13 7.9 139.0 ($1.8% $ 101 .0) $0.1 ($24.1% $ 67.24 $0 .4) ($0.3 $3 4.8 40 .4% -2.0 $2.5 29.8) -156 .7) $8 3.5) ($0 .8% -1 0.1 $50 .06) ($0.0) $0.7 2.0% ($8 4.0 $6.5% 12 .4% ($1 1.1% 2.2) -8 90.2 130 .2 $1 .9% 5 .9 $21 .0 $2.2 113 .20 6 9.3 70.4) $6 .4% 4.Full y Di luted Wei ghted avera ge shares used Av g Shar es .3 Fis cal 2 010E Q2 E $ 15.3 $3 1.8 $8.2 $1 1.5) ($0.4) ($3.2% 5.0 1 $ 0.5% $16 2.7 $1 1.20 $0.4 $0 .0 $0 .0% 1 97.6% 1.6 127.1% 3.8% 5.4 Fis cal 2 010E Q2 E Q3 E $18 3.0% ($1 48. Ope rating Expe nse s Ope rating Income N on ope rating (income) expense: Interest i ncome (expe nse) Oth er income (expe nse) Forex gai n (l oss) N on ope rating (income) expense Incom e (loss) be fore tax es Incom e Tax Expense Minority Interes t N et Incom e (loss) Ba si c i ncome (loss) per ADS D iluted i ncome (loss) per ADS Ba si c i ncome (loss) per share D iluted i ncome (loss) per share Wei ghted Average ADS Used Avg ADS .0% $2 .0) $0.42) 63 .06 70 .9 2.2% $162 .2 $3 2.

28) $2.-------.---------.6% 68.6 0.015 $1.0% 92.5 ($65) 35.75 1 2.7 0.46 9 5.17) $2.5 144 0.7 $12.0 $0.8 -0.1 171 0.---.14.0 $0.5% -0.000 $1.---------.0% -2.005 $1.-------Total Liabilities & Shareholders' Eq $645 $927 $1.71 ($1.0 1.-..074 $1.0 $0.7 $0.-----.71 $0.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 290: SOL Balance Sheet FYE : December Asset s Current Asset s: Cash and cash equivalents Restric ted Cash Accounts rec eivable.54 9 7.7 $0.0 27% 28% 11% 12% 14% 20% 19% 10% 14% 13% 25% 18% 12% 13% 15% (132%) (12%) (50%) (57%) (80%) (3%) (19%) (1%) (1%) (2%) (4%) (26%) (1%) (2%) (3%) 1% (35%) 0% 0% 1% 1% (1%) 0% 0% 0% 8% 2% 3% 3% 4% 6% 4% 2% 3% 3% 7% 5% 3% 3% 4% 7% 7% 3% 3% 4% 0.0% 95.4 0.30 ($2.7 $0.---------.-.1 0.75 9 5.6 0.76 12 2.8% 49.47 ($2.4% .54 ($1.1 $39.70 $2.9 -0.029 ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== $89 $22 $72 $0 $12 $196 $134 $34 $1 $365 $134 $22 $94 $0 $17 $266 $137 $44 $2 $450 $167 $20 $152 $0 $28 $368 $139 $45 $8 $559.11 $3.69 9 8.2 1.47 ($1.------.3 0.0 $351.6 ($61) 36.14) $2. 2009 267 .70 $192 $38 $49 $12 $42 $333 $139 $33 $117 $621 $192 $38 $49 $12 $42 $333 $139 $33 $117 $621 $192 $38 $49 $12 $42 $333 $139 $33 $117 $621 $192 $38 $49 $12 $42 $333 $139 $33 $117 $621 $192 $38 $49 $12 $42 $333 $139 $33 $117 $621 $192 $38 $49 $12 $42 $333 $139 $33 $117 $621 $192 $38 $49 $12 $42 $333 $139 $33 $117 $621 $192 $38 $49 $12 $42 $333 $139 $33 $117 $621 $192 $38 $49 $12 $42 $333 $139 $33 $117 $621 $18 $1 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -.---------.1 0.75 $0.0 $363.9 63.4 0.7 0.2 $187 51.0 61 0.66 ($1.0 $0.84 Source: Company reports.2 $0.6% 90.-------.-------.---------.63 25 6.0 $0.5 $2.78) $2.9 53 0.1% 49.71 $2.----.0 41 0.9% 48.----------.---.4 0.7 $109 36.79 $2.5% 48.6% 49.7% 49.93) $2.5 43 1.72 $2.7 $0.82 ($1.-------.----.5% 98.77 $2.90) $2.79 $0.009 $1.7 64 0.4% -0.6 -0.---------.2% -2.67 $0.9 $0.6 ($73) 34.43 ($2. net % Sales Inventories % Sales Advances to suppliers Amounts due from related parties Value added tax recoverable Other c urrent assets Total Current Assets Net P P&E Equity investment in J oint Venture Other non-current as sets Total Assets LIAB.74 9 8.7 0.7% 94.0 $363.8 0.-------.002 $999 $1.----------.002 $999 $1.5 ($76) 34.------.----.0 $363.009 $1.---.4 0.----.---.-.75 $2.84 ($1.---------.1% 40.5 0.---.78 $2.5 149 0.-.3 $58.7% 47.1% 96.81 $2.005 $1.0 $0.7 $0.------.4 1.78 $0.-----.---------.83) $2.0 0.3 50 0.7 $228 27.0% -14.0% 96.9% -1.7 $0.Capex/Interest Book & Cash Value B ook Value Per S hare Cash Per Share Net Cash Per S hare Tangible Book value $257. & SHRHLDRS' E QUITY S-Term Debt Accounts payable Advances from customers Amounts due to related parties Other c urrent liabilities Total Current Liabilities: Conv ertible bond payable LT Debt Other non-current liabilities Total Liabilit ies Minority Interest Q1 Fiscal 2008E Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1E Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E Q4E Q1E Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E Q4E $67 $274 $99 $112 $202 $117 $98 $93 $43 $61 $73 $68 $0 $0 $26 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $16 $3 $3 $43 $11 $14 $18 $17 $19 $18 $19 $19 13% 2% 2% 27% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% $156 $206 $320 $193 $69 $68 $72 $69 $114 $92 $75 $77 127% 119% 148% 122% 60% 50% 40% 40% 60% 50% 40% 40% $89 $100 $124 $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 $36 $28 $6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4 $2 $1 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $14 $12 $16 $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 $382 $625 $596 $442 $376 $292 $282 $272 $269 $264 $260 $257 $172 $184 $261 $341 $405 $485 $496 $507 $518 $529 $540 $551 $0 $17 $23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $90 $101 $194 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 -.----------.------.0 $0.80 1 2.0 $315.-----.9 41 0.-.7 $0.-----.-------.----.0 $363..3% -15.0 $363.4% 94.9% 48.81 $0.---.70 $0.84 $0.---------.1% 47.1% -1.0 $363.---.9 -0.80) $3.70 ( $1.2 0.5 4.72 9 6.-.9% 95.-.6 1.5% -2.51 ($2.---------.7 10.6 ($51) 36.6 0.9% 66.04) $2.67 $2.7 0. Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted May 01.3 $0.7 ($41) 36.---.074 $1.72 9 9.09 ($0.3% 48.----.5 ( $69) 35.0 $363.-------$645 $927 $1.4 0.-.9% 39.63 $2..63 $3.---.4 0.-.---.000 $1.022 $1.5 0.2% 48.-----.-------.---------.9% -2.-------.31) $3.5 43 0.1% 89.-------.0 $363.11 $0.74 9 8.---.77 $1.7 $0.9 62 0.029 ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== Total Debt % Change Q/Q $ Change Check.52) $2.015 $1.------.06) $2.-----.------.72 $0.---------.2 $35.---.0 $0.4 -2.7 13.-------Shareholders' Equity $262 $476 $513 $383 $381 $377 $378 $379 $387 $393 $400 $408 -.001 $1.001 $1.2 9.6 $0.sum P erformance Metrics P rofitability Ratios Return On Equity Return on Av g Equity Return On Assets Return On Net As sets Return On Sales E fficiency Ratios S ales / Total Assets A /R Days Sales Out Inventory Turns Days of Inventory Liquidity Ratios Current Ratio Quick Ratio Net Working Capital ($M) Long-Term Debt / Equity Debt/Capital Total Debt / Equity E BITDA/Interest E BITDA.022 $1.0 $363.6 $358 28.9 $43 36.

5 Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E 2.0% -7% 4 82.0 70 0.9% 0.59 $ 0.22 -2.75 0.56 211.460.33 1.9 19 .3 17.0% 0.68 43 .32 -10.0% 0.0 737.44 7.8 241% 1.0 1. Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted 268 May 01.7% 0.0 1.1 119.23 0.30 0.33 2.60 -5.72 2 8.0 270.5% -5% 357.0 -20% 1.3 $ 14.83 27.60 0 .330 3 65.6 15.3 626.6 214% 1.5 30.57 -21.7 84% 2 08.0 80% 34.8 31.0 Fiscal 200 8 Q2 Q3 880 .89 Source: Company reports.2 84% 31 .63 0.0 1.07 1.0 1040 3 00.62 $ 162.84 499.460.9 553.4 39% Co st of revenu es Blended Silicon Price ($/kg) Silicon consumption (g/W ) Silicon cost per watt Non-silicon cost per watt To tal Costs per Watt Own Wafer Co gs OEM COG S O ve rall Co st o f Revenu es G ross Mar gin $ 199 $ 6.14 2.50 $ 0.5 550.9 -19% 1.0 365.3 82% 44.460.0 365.2 23.0 99% 288.18 -12.4% $ 98 $ 6.0% 0.5 2350.4 104% 1.0 500 145. 2009 .0 85% 552.0 170.1% 0.0 74% 216.0 2 .32 1.1 1.84 $ 2 94.0 85% 59 5.31 $ 0.0 12.0 80 0.0 1.94 $ 404.0 365.4 17.0 F isca l 2010 E Effective Utilization Ra te Own Wafer Sale s As a % of total shipments OEM T otal Prod uctio n (MW) 82% 100.14 -10.7 % $ 244 $ 6 .1 $ 1.825.27 -4.2 87% 160 .96 2.460.5 191 .8% 0.6% -1% 5 41.98 -5.5% -9% 433.0 400 .7 18.5 531.0 80% 54.2% -3 6% 1490.33 1.40 -39.0 0.36 $ 1.1 84% 19.0% -17% 236.47 -5.33 $ 1.33 1.0 F iscal 2009E Q1 E 2.30 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 105 6.8 1% 1.7 70% 1 57.70 0.0% 0.02 1.0 360.4% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 100 6.70 -3.0% 0.6% 0.4 383.33 1.2 8% 1.56 10.075.62 -15.67 -4.0 2 .03 -5.0 0.460.26 $ 0.3 3 1.0% -5% 64 3.4 2 52.88 483.0 1.06 -24.0 1.16 2.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 291: LDK Earnings Drivers F YE: Dece mb er Ann ual Cap acity (MW) Effective Capacity Q uarterly Cap acity (MW) Q1 580.1% $ $ $ $ $ 1 63 6.91 42 6.72 -3.68 2.6 315.31 0 .0 Q4 1.9 3 69.0 6 12.48 1.0 96% 0.950.83 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 205 6.0 1997.6 62% 96.57 0.0% 0.54 0.0 960.1 $ 1.0% -5% 628.0% -5% 560.9 29.32 0.1 $ 1.98 0.8% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 175 6.0 80% 72.57 5.3% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 95 6.6 0 0.77 -10.09 -5 .7 $ 419.4% 0.1% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 125 6.7 121% 1.0% 2% 1643.025.9 3 304.0 $ 6.16 1.9 20.2 191.1 5.460.4 25.97 1.5 Q4E 3.0 1.07 3 43.0 0.9 $ 168.7% -22% 4 26.33 $ 1.4 218% 2.99 1.0 2.7 % $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 264 6.0 85% 10 5.7% $ 249 $ 6.0 85% 467.4 21.0 675.8 $ 10.5 85% 97.73 8.4 20.0 400 .0 0.0 0.34 $ 1.5% -4% 462 .20 344.27 1.2% 10% 441 .57 -5.4 $ 3 29.0% 0.7 2 54.0 0 .38 297.0 0.5 85% 67.55 -29.0 240.8 31.7 346% 2.87 0.0 2.31 0.0 1.9% 0.0 Q4E 1.0 4 7% 1.7 45 1.61 $ 0.4 -29.460.4 367.5 4 50.0 -9% 85% 3 82.450.0 $ 0.20 1.4% $ 265 $ 6.7 817.2 2 5.0 100% 320 .5 25.75 -3.9 45% 0 .92 0 .0 730 220 .5 650.200.0 3.9 11.63 -5 .0 80% 80 .0 Fiscal 2008 Q 1E 1.6% -5% 233.7% -22% 2314.86 51.5 85% 82.0 12 00.05 0.6 00.8 55% ASPs ($/W) Own Wafer Sale s Q/Q % OEM Q/Q % Y/Y (%) Prod uct Revenue s Y/Y (%) 1.3 $ 1.9 47% 136.0% 0 .1 56% 0.0% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 145 6.3% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 90 6.33 1.39 1.0 1200.0 22.98 2.2 223.8 513.0 F iscal 2009E Q2E Q3E 1.95 362.51 $ 0.

4 2.1 $13.59 $0. 0 $0. 9 $14.1% -19. 0 $0.6% 0.8 ($62.5% 24.0 $118. 3 $112.2% 18.1 $102. 4) $4.9 ($20. 0% 13.3% 0.3% 10. 3% 19.7 90. 0 $0. 4) ($132.9% 16.6) Q4E $87.9 $237. 0 $0.9) ($1.5% 12. 5% 3.6 $298. 4 21. 2 $2.0 $76.3 $59.0 $27. 5 $49. 7 17% $14.0) $6.0 $19.2% 17. 0 ($132.4% 22.8 ($8. 6 22. 0 $13.0) $86.5 111. 0% 14.7 Q4 $426. (PF EBIT DA + NI -Cap ex) Q1 $58.0 $71.3% $366.9% $329.2% -2.6 $0.6 20% $12. 0 $0.0 $7.0) $24. 3% $419. 4 2. 0 $0.2% 345.0 $0.470. 314.8 2. 6% $11.9) Q1E $236.9% 8.3 ($154.0 $27.55 $0.1% 0. 9 ($7.0 -68. 1 $0. 2% 14. 7% 8. 8 $0. 2 $110.7% 16.7 115. 6 2.45 106.2) Fiscal 2008 $133.1% 0. 5 106.2) ($0.1% 10. 0 $0.5 115. 5 115. 0% 17. 6 $65.3 $71.2 -17. 0 $5.9) Q4E $99. 3% -101.7% 8.5 F iscal 2008 Q2 Q3 $441. 9 ($10. 4% F iscal 2008 Q2 Q3 $108. 9 $98. 880. 5% 14.8 89.2% -220.1% 56.7 $74.0 $23. 7% $383.9 2.9% ($56. 3% 39.0 ($9. 5% 21.8% $331.3% 12.9) -406. 0 $0. 0 $108.26 106.1% $263. 5% 1.2% 196. 4% 10.77 113. 1 $107.4 $5.2 6.5) ($639. 0 $37.5 115.3 $0.5% $223.0) $6. 9% ($38. 0 51.9% 16. 4% 18. 3% 14.0 $0.5 $2. 2 2.2 $530.7% 16.5) Source: Company reports. 7% ($151. 9% ($47.3% 13.8 $2.47 $0.7 $541.8 $0. 0% 5.8% -73. 3 $0. 0 $68. 08) ($0. 9% 9.00 106.40 $1. 0 $42. 7 $2. 4% $553. 0) Fi scal 2009E Q2E Q3E $94. 0 $237. 0 $25.2% -3. 3% ($11. 2% 22.4 111. 3) 73.5 Fi scal 2010E Q2E Q3E $560.9 21.4 $92.7 2. 3% 4. 0 $65. 0 $55. 0 101.2 12. 7 $96.3 $8.0% -20.3 22. 7% 216.7 $12.3) ($1. 7% 15. 2% 12. 4 $0. 2% 13. 6 174.0% -5. 9 $8. 6 1.6% 13.9 ($20.5% 0.7% 8.6 Fi scal 2009E $1. 6 $12. 3% ($6.16 106. 5% 2.0% $57.6) $4. 0 $107.1% 72.5 $59.0 $0. 0 $326.2 123. 4% 9.3 $0.6 $0.5 $0. 0 $0. 0 $8.0 3.3 $0.0) $11.6) ($151.8% 10. 0 $83. 0 $73.3 $57. 7% -36. 9 $433.1 $0.4% 0. 0 -160.1% 0. 6 $12. 4 112.0 $4. 8) Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E $34. 6) $162.9 ($20. 1 $628. 0 $17. 8) $58.0 $122.16 $0.9% 0.8 $107. 1) $80. 6 $2.5% ($144. 7 ($15. 5 107.0 $0. 2% 12. 2 $2.6 -97. 490. 9 Fi scal 2010E $2.0 $19.0 17% $11.6% 25. 1 $65.8% $10. 5% 3.0 $69.47 $0.0 -9% $1.0% 14. 5 106.6 59.4% 85. General & Admin.4 $112. 9) $4.7% $85.2% $513.9 ($30. 0 $13. 0) $10.9 $2.4 Q4E $462.2% 18. 5 $173.0 $214. 9% ($1.4 $11. 6% 12.5 $270.2% 15. 0 $100.9 $92.9% 47.7% 241. Operati ng Expenses Operati ng I ncome Non operatin g (i ncome) expense: Interest incom e (expense) Other income (expense) Forex gai n (loss) Non operatin g (i ncome) expense I ncome (loss) befo re taxes I ncome Tax Expense (Ben efi t) Net I ncome (loss) Accreti on of preferred shares to redemption val Deemed di vidend to preferred shareh older s Net i ncome avail able to ord inary sharehol ders Basic incom e (loss) per share Dilut ed income (l oss) per share from Operations Weight ed average shares used Avg Shares . 0 $4.51 106.4% -27. 1 114. 2% 5.0 $0.3% 0. 3) Fi scal 2010E $396.5% $379.8) ($416. 275.1% 218. 1 $1.0 $27. 3 $0.1% 0. 7 $115.9% ($16.5 $8.0% $315.5) $65.437) Fi scal 2009E $196. 0 $50.1 Fiscal 2008 $1. 0 $88. 9 $5.0 $149.4 $2.6% 9.23 $2. 0 $18. 6% 22. 1) ($151.29 106.1) ($8.0 $121. 3% ($17.2% 20. 5 ($15. 2% 121. 4 $11. 3% -31.2% FYE: December Pro F orma EBI TDA % Ch ange Y/Y % Ch ange Q/ Q % Sales LT M EBITDA Capi tal Spendi ng % of Sal es Depreciati on % of COGS FCF Ops Est. 0 $42. 6 214% $1.2% 12.1% 0.0% 13.4 $0. 0) $11.01 $1. 4% 103. 0 $19.2) $0.0 $27. 6 $0.3) $5.9 2. 0 $0. 9 $108. 0 $16.5 $0.0% 24.5% $256.5% 21.0 ($8.7% $7.3) Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E $357. 9% 10. 08) 106.2% $531. 0) $11.4 111.3 $0.489.7% 10. 0 $0.0) $5. 2 $37.2 $7.6 5114.3% $369. 0 $62.5 $61. 4 $16. 5% Q4 ($142. 6 47. 4 $105.0% 0.3 250.0 $0.5 2.9 $2. 2 17% $14.3 17% $12. 3 ($60.2% 19.1 $263.0 97.2 $28.8% $322.0 $85.2 Q4E $643.9% 9.4% 12.5% -29.8 -44.8 $0. 0 $0.05 106.8 $434.0 $0.0% $5. 9 16. 3 $149. 3% 4. 0 $14.5% 4.5 $1. 7 -21. 4 20% $13. 7% 4. 0% $168.0 $61. 1% 133.78 $0. 0 $49.5 $9. 4% 4. 5% $141.35 106.40 $1. 6% 6.1 $0.2% 9.7% 33.3% 12. 8% 12. 8 $8.9 $13. Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted May 01. 9% 13.61 $0. 5 $15.0) $43.5% 10.0 $88.8% 7. 4) Q1E $82. 0 $25. 0 20.8% 24.6% $27.0 $17.5 115.3% 45. 0 ($5.0 $154.4% -21.0 $17.6% $70. 6% 12. 2 $154.0 $522. 9% 0.5% 0.4% 28. 7% 6.3% 14.7 $1. 2% 20. 4% 5.3 $8. 6 $102. 5 $32. 2 $59.0 $67.0 $4.1 $13. 4% 17.0 $81. 2 $5.9% $178. 8% 1. 0 $14.0 $52.4 $0. 8 $64. 25) 106. 25) ($1. 0 $0. 8 $2. 8 $88. 3 $0.Full y Di luted (M ) Percent of Sales Gross Margin I ncrement al Gross Margin R&D SG&A Operating Income Net Income Tax Rat e (i) Q1 $233.4% 12. 3 $0. 1 $2.0) $6.6 $0. 0 $59.8 ($80.4% 3.3) ($18.1 ($15.6 $71.0 $46. 0 ($3. 3 $108.43 106.6% ($48. 3% 173.2% 5. 1 ($66. 0 $0. 3) $172.3% 7.0 $138. 6% 4. 0 $100. 1% 2.1% $367. 3 $0.7 4. 4 $5. 9 $205. 4 20% $6.0 $17. 2009 269 .54 106.9) $0. 0% $12. 0 $50.1 2. 3 ($5. 3% 12.3 $0.1% 396. 0 $17.56 106.8 $0.8 $0. 57 106. 0 $25.5 107.7 $0.5 115.6 2. 0 $25. 5 106. 3 $16. 3 ($20. 1 $24.7% 26. 0 $17. 58 $0. 1% 16.5% $451. 6 20% $10.6) ($220. 4 4.4% 12. 3) -50.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 292: LDK Income Statement FYE: December Revenue QoQ YoY Cost of Goods Gross Profi t R&D Selling. 2% Q1E $1.1% 30.8 27.8 55% $1. 6 $490. 0% 24. 0 ($3. 8 Q1E $482. 0 $5.35 $0. 7 $62. 0 2. 7 3. 3% ($8. 2 $1.2% 10. 1% 93.643.0% 10.9 14.4 88. 9 ($15. 4 ($126. 3% 3.2% 2065% 9. 9 $67.8% -2. 7 $0. 0 $47. 2% 0. 0 $19. 0% 22. 9% 0. 8% $181.8% -33.

-----------.399.03 ($5.-----.40 ( $5.549 $3.669 ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== $351.---------.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 293: LDK Balance Sheet Q1 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1E Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E Q4E Q1E Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E Q4E Assets Current Assets: Cash and cash equivalents $94 $84 $348 $256 $752 $690 $691 $763 Pledged bank depos its $142 $262 $115 $83 $5 $5 $5 $5 Accounts receivable.2% -5.8 0.9% 56.186 $1.697 $1.49 $6.18) $9.5% 59..861 ====== $666 $63 10% $256 $464 $1.68 7 2.89 ($6.0 $0.291.669 ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== LIAB.220 $2.182 $11 $554 $533 $2.50 5 4.7 22% $62.7% 53.88 $5.01 $7.05 ($4.024 $233 $1 $99 $105 -----------$3.1 0.6% -4.721 ====== $1.730 $11 $559 $436 $2.399.16 $8.453 $3.399.7 $364 56.-----.2 0% $0.325 $1.-----Total Assets $1.7% 115.4 ($186) 64.0 $0.5 80 0.73 7 2.430 $1.93 $0.2 0% $0.201 $233 $1 $99 $105 ----.5 0.52) $10.4% 45.208 .6 ($208) 71.-.-.0 0.010 $1.5 0.8 37.220.81 $9.----------.0 $683 $5 $31 5% $314 50% $84 $32 $71 $1.709 $11 -------.-----------.66) $8.640 $11 $733 $533 $2.67) $9.0 181 0.411 $1.181 $3.52 5 6.00 $0.5 56 0.181 $3.6% 165.------.70 $3.1 0.2% 58.84 ($2.9 0.49 $9.Capex/Interest Book & Cash Value Book Value Per Share Cash Per Share Net Cash Per Share Tangible Book value $0.853 $2.1% 59.46 ($5.7 ($177) 71.93 $8.59 5 6.0 0.4% 146.---$3.0 $0.0 $0.3% -12.204 $1.3 2.4% 129.451 $733 $533 $2.0% 50.399.1 $1.88 $0.7 $278 4.7% 56.-----------.0 $52.699 $11 $801 $5 $24 5% $241 50% $84 $32 $71 $1.49 6 4.4 $1.0% -0.0% 55.021 -----------$3.0 $643 $5 $32 5% $322 50% $84 $32 $71 $1.8 149% $523.443 $733 $533 $2.------.5 $874.81 $6.65 5 6.---------.4 57 0.---$3.93) $9.----------$3.5 Total Debt % Change Q/Q $ Change Check-sum Performance Metrics Profitability Ratios Retur n On Equity Retur n on A vg Equity Retur n On Assets Retur n On Net As sets Retur n On Sales Ef ficiency Ratios Sales / Total Assets A/R Day s S ales Out Inv entory Turns Days of Inv entory Liquidity Ratios Current Ratio Quick Ratio Net Working Capital ($M) Long-Term Debt / Equity Debt/Capital Total Debt / E quity EBITDA/Interest EBITDA.8% 59.7 ($206) 68.428 $3.0 $0.925 ====== $1.8 0.8 97 0.91 ($5.1 3.7 ($201) 67.5 0.16) $8.-----------.238 $1.717 $11 .853.70 $8.5 $6.---$1.8 $1.16 $6.72 ($6.----------.145 ----.215 $1.549 $3.433 L-Term Debt Other non-c urrent liabilities Total Liabilit ies Redeemable convertible preferred shares $38 $303 $1.----------$3.----.7 0.9 $1.------$3.8% 57.-----.721 ====== $666 $48 10% $256 $464 $1.428 $3.7 18.6 ($229) 64.8 $477 72.-----.-----.-----.5 0.5 $1.7 0.41 7 4.1% -4.8 $1.0 $742 $5 $28 5% $280 50% $84 $32 $71 $1.0% 127.799 $1.343. net $9 $35 $40 $95 $24 $29 $30 $23 % Sales 4% 8% 7% 22% 10% 8% 7% 5% Inventories $520 $656 $702 $704 $237 $304 $325 $300 % Sales 222.526 $11 $626 $533 $2.45 ($6.080 -------.453 $3.5 0.5 0.2% -11.2 16% 21% 2% 3% 4% 4% $136.715 $11 ----.6% 148.0 Shareholders' Equit y Total Liabilities & Shareholders' Equit y -----.------$3.4 0.6% 141.-----.-----------.Term Debt $314 $376 $452 $666 $666 $666 $666 $666 Trade accounts payable $37 $67 $59 $124 $24 $36 $43 $46 % Sales 16% 15% 11% 29% 10% 10% 10% 10% Advance payments from customers $231 $243 $343 $256 $256 $256 $256 $256 Accrued expenses and other payables $150 $178 $332 $464 $464 $464 $464 $464 Total Current Liabilities: $732 $864 $1.04 $8.88 $10.6 86.-.381 $3.5 0.4 39.----------.0% 122. net $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 Land use rights $65 $79 $98 $99 $99 $99 $99 $99 Deferred inc ome tax assets and other non-current $75 $79 $93 $105 $105 $105 $105 $105 -----.42 $5.1 $2. Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted 270 May 01.7 ($155) 75.6 ($193) 74.0 $28.9% 31.6 ($262) 60.63) $8. 2009 .04 $7.242 $2.461 $3.6 55 0.3 280 0.31 $9.278 Net PP& E $501 $706 $1.0% 144.581 $11 $678 $533 $2.5 0.108 $233 $1 $99 $105 -------.925 ====== $666 $64 10% $256 $464 $1.2 0% $0.6 $209.4 0.381 $3.0 $0.435 $733 $533 $2.01 $8.----.-----.073 $11 $499 $367 $1.8% 137.2 0% $0.189 $2.11 ($5.66 5 6.2 116 0.511 $1.49 20 3.11 $8.6% 147.0 26% 23% 11% 11% 21% 87% 40% 25% 26% 34% 35% 40% 11% 12% 16% (62%) 17% (15%) (17%) (31%) (4%) 11% (1%) (1%) (3%) 8% (4%) 2% 2% 5% 16% (10%) 4% 5% 9% 25% 11% 7% 8% 13% 20% 17% 5% 7% 10% 22% 20% 6% 8% 11% 23% 21% 7% 8% 10% 21% 20% 6% 8% 10% 0.461 $3.----.0 $0.------$1.-----$769 $687 $999 $863 $855 $872 $909 $970 -----.7% 148.40 ($9.-----.-----------.50 3 1.9 1.861 ====== $1.5% 59.88 $5. & S HRHLDRS' E QUITY S..3 0.82) $5.738 $1.6 56 0.4 153 0.788 ====== $666 $56 10% $256 $464 $1.11 $2.2% -5.0 $55.297 $233 $1 $99 $105 .42 Source: Company reports.399.248.55 ($6.258 $2.0 $0.28 9 3.011.5 0.-----.31) $6.7 0.550 $1.8 0.7% -14.6 0.-----$1.3% 101.8% -5.4% 19.450 $733 $533 $2.1 0.-----.423 $1.701 $11 -----------$1.----------$1.3 0..31 $6.0 $0.6% 129.4 0.952 Depos it for pur chase of equipm ent $201 $222 $301 $233 $233 $233 $233 $233 Intangible assets .139 $1.------.8% -3.---------.598 $11 $583 $533 $2.0 $0.2 88 0.873 $1.9 74 0.06) $8.4 $43.10) $8.1% 100% 85% 75% 65% Prepayment to suppliers $206 $254 $295 $84 $84 $84 $84 $84 Deferred Expenses $0 $0 $0 $32 $32 $32 $32 $32 Other current assets $40 $50 $50 $71 $71 $71 $71 $71 Total Current Asset s $1.2% -2.1 0.-----.341 $1.788 ====== $1.78) $8.

92 0.0 70 .0 69.4% 160.39 0.0 80.30 0.0 Fiscal 2009E Q1E 400.65 0.0 19.5 16.8% 14.0 80.0 197.30 62.94 $ $ $ $ $ 119.69 1.0% 8.29% -32% -31% .4 19.0 60% 40% 1.0 110.3 15.0 280.0% 9.0 70.0 30% 73% 28% $ 1.4 10.94 217.68 1.9 8.0 290.9 335.40 0.0 100 .0 400.0 19.4 285.30 72.6 4.4% 140.0 80.0 50% 50% 2.0 140.0 16.5 85.2% 40 0.21 $ 3.29 0.40 0.6% 9.0 11.0 147.28 $ 1.6 175.8 55% 45% 350.91 -37% -39% -46% -39% -40% -31% -4% -4% -6% $ 1.0 55 .8 1.51 $ 1.0 80% 20% 1.6 100.30 0.30 245.8% 60.6% 9.0 125.0 10 0.0% 8.8% 15.80 0.30 106.0 60% 40% $ $ $ $ $ 52 3.5 71.84 $ $ $ $ $ 75.22 $ 1.0 16.1% $ 3.0 11.3% 34.35 -26% .30 85.0 54.2 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 250.0 80% 20% 1.71 $ $ $ $ $ 106.88 0.25 0.4 67.94 $ $ $ $ $ 43.6 11.4 -7.6% 50.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 294: CSUN Earnings Drivers FY E: December Annual Capacit y (MW ) Q uarterly Capacit y (MW) Available Capacity (MW) Q1 220.0 141.0 19.6 242.94 $ $ $ $ $ 48.2% 110.2 7.81 0.30 209.30 0.2 57.3 1.5 32.8 48.6% 25.21 0.0 108.8 127.19 0.30 106.0 19.17 261.43 0.0 186% 60% 40% 3.64 1.0% 80.0 50% 50% $ $ $ $ $ 30.3 $ 3.1 0.29% -15% -8% -8% -5% Source: Company reports.0 151.0 60% 40% $ $ $ $ $ 1.0% 8.0 18.0 60.44 0.4% 35.0 17.68 60.95 $ 1.0 130.8 11.4% 108.0 13.0 122.0% 9.26 0.0 67. 2009 271 .4 -14.57 0.0 Fiscal 2008 Q1E 320.0 130.79 1.97 0.19 .0 105.0 55.9 -2.0 100.0 118.10 $ 1.27 0.68 65.36 0.20 0.30 0.0 65.0 Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E 320.0 80.0 125.0 100.0 Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E 400.6 10.2% 24.0 110.30 57.2 8.0 50% 50% 2.30 0.7 66.2 45% 55% 2.0 80.0 36.94 $ $ $ $ $ 111.0 40.65 0.0 Q4E 400.0 36.0 80.0 65.48 $ 2.68 75.5 Q4 320.35 0.0 16.21 0.0 100.0% 9.0 62.5 285.30 0.3 12.30 150.82 0.23 0.68 69.30 210.44 0.0 52.4 12.9 94.31 0.0 105.8 11.8 465.2 20.20 9% -16% $ 2.23 0.4 11.56 0.0% 8.9 7.9% 40.0 Q4E 400.78 $ 1.30 0.93 $ 3.5 16.30 0.5 44.0 50% 50% 2.14 0.68 0. Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted May 01.03 $ 1.30 205.5 98.71 $ $ $ $ $ 75.1 9.34 0.0 80% 20% 1.0 160.0 17.89 $ 1.30 0.6% 9.3 10.70 0.0 60% 40% $ $ $ $ $ 1.2 -32.39 $ 1.77 0.0 80.0 111.6 285.30 126.6% 9.0 195.0 100.0 85.0 Fiscal 2010E Revenues COGS G ross Profit G ross Margin (%) O ut put ( MW) S ilicon Breakdown S pot Contract Costs ($/W) S pot Contract P roces sing Costs P oly to W afer Costs S ilicon Prices ($/kg) S pot Contract Conversion Eff iciency G rams/Watt ASP ( $/Watt) P V Modules y /y (%) q/q ( %) $ $ $ $ $ 77.0 400.1 9.1 280.0 130.6% 9.2 15.17 $ 2.20 0.4 58.

9 $1.0 $1.2 Q4E $106. 1 $1.0 $0.4 -333.0% 11.3 $12. 5% 5.8% -64. 8% 6.1% 1.1 Q4E $195. 08 39.8 39.1) $11.8% 83.4% 6.7% 4.0 $0.7 40. 8 100% $335. 6 15.2% $31.9 ($9. 514) ($1. 5 $9. 9) $0.09 0.20) 42.0% 12.20) (0. 1 ($20.4% 9. 5) Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E $48.2% 87. 0% $0. 9 $8. 5% 4.0 $0.6 $6. 6 $0.3 ($1.7) $10. 9% -11.0 $0.4 ($1. 3 $0.4% ($31. 0% 10.0 $0. 1 $0.5 Q1E $75.6 $119. 66) (0.8% -93. 4) ($19.5 0. 2% 14. 9 49% Fiscal 2009E $261. 8 Q1 $77. 5 1.7 $5.2% -53.5% ($11.9 $20.0 $18.2% 153.8 $0.1% 5.9% -6.4 $0.9) Q4E $14.0% 12. 2% 1.5 $5. 5% ($6. 0% $7. 3) (0. 0% $2.6 $4. 5% 5. 0 $13.9 $6.0 $0.4% -4.4 $0. 9 $1. 8 $75.5 -59.0 $6.6% $57.4 10.7) $0. 7% 2.4% -2.4% -56. 4) ($12. 8% 0.8 $0.01 39. 0% $98.0% 0.0 $1. 4) $0.1 $0.6% ($36.7% 6.0) Q4E Q1E Fi scal 2010E Q2E Q3E $8.7 1. 9) $0.0 $108.3) ($0. 4 $2.6% 0.4 $4. Operating E xpenses Operating I ncom e N on operating (income) expense: I nt erest inc ome (expense) Other inc ome (expens e) N on operating (income) expense Income (loss) before taxes Income Tax Expense (B enefi t) N et I ncome (l oss) D ividends on redeemable conv pref shares Series A Series B Series C N et i ncome available to ordinary shareholders Basi c income (loss ) per AD S D ilut ed inc ome (loss ) per AD S f rom Operations Weighted average AD S used Wei ghted A vg A DS .0 $16.3 -1323.0 ($22.8% 12.0% $1.0 $0. (P F EB ITDA + N I -C apex) Q1 $3.8% 0.9 $5.3% -48.6% 98. 3 $12.5 $5.4% $94. 0 $5.0 $4. 11 43.5% ($3.02 44. 8% ($9.3% 12.0 $11.2% $37. 0 ($1. 3) (0.0 $1.8 $0. 2% 45. 9 1.7 1.2% 0.222 ($1.2 0. 5% ($19.9) $0. 4 $0. 5% 128.8 $14. 3% 7.5) 7.8 $0. 0 $0.0 $7.8 45. 0 $1. 2 0. 4% ($23.5% 5. 0 -135.5) ($0.5% ($2.9% 0.8 $0.0 $20. 1 $0. 0% FYE: D ecember Pro Form a EBI TDA % Change Y/Y % Change Q/Q % Sales LTM E BITD A C api tal Spendi ng % of Sales D epreciati on % of COGS FC F Ops Est.5% ($3. 6 $0.8 42.4% 21.0 $0. 9 $9.9 $14.1% 2.9) $0.0 $7.9% -33. 6% 17. 6% $8.9% 6.7 $6.2 15. Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted 272 May 01.6 10. 5% 112.4% 13.0 ($8.5% 5.9 $5.9% 28.5 $3. 0 $0. 8 44.9% 0. 6 10. 13) (0.6% -7. 5% $0.0 $0.2 15.0 $4.0% -303. 0 7. 0 $8.8 $0.5% $26.6% 12.7 ($8. 9 1. 7 $6.2 137. 7 $8.0 $0.6 1.7% ($15.0 $7. 0 $0. 3 $29.0 $0.8 43.7% -39. 26 0.5 ($25. 1 $0. 6% 12.2% 54.8% $1.0% 12.3% -60.0 $0.9 $2. 3% 10369.09 45.9) $0.4% 8. 9% $4.8% 9. 2009 .8% 13. 0) -60024.1% 1.7) 1. 1% 7.2 $2. 5 $15.2 $0. 7) $4.4) (0.0 $0.5 ($14.8 46.1) $18.4% 4. 8% 32. 8) ($7.5 $5.01 0.9) ($12. 2 ($6. 3% ($6. 7% $48.2% 0.8% 0.2% 26.5% 5.20) (0.1% 37.5 -29.3% -36.6) $9.0 $0. 2 $11. 9 $7. 4% 12. 8 40.8 $26.20) 40. 8 $0.7 $7.3 $0.2% 98.7 40.4 ($1.12 0. 4 $58.0 $1.1% 7. 5 $29.9% 2.9) $0. 7% ($26.56) (0. 2 $8.1 -374. 03 0.1 $1.1% 4. 0% $3.9 11.0 $0.0 $0.3) ($1.8 $0.1% 12.0% $0.8 $0.2 $1. 0 $0.6 1.7% 10. 8) (0.2 $20.4% -3.7) $0. 7% 5.7 Q4 $43.7 $21.4 $3.7 $125.1% 111.17 0. 1) ($7.9 $41.0) $7. 3) $7.17 47. 6) ($22.5% -27.0 $1.9% 6.9 ($6. 1 1. 7% 39.0% ($1.0 ($5.3 46.6 $4. 5% ($7.8 $0. 08 0. 4% -246.6% 12. 4) ($1.7 $8.8) ($5.7 $6. 2% 9.9 ($2.9) ($6.4 0.0% $1.5) $6. 0 $0.8% 12.7% 6.3% -47.1 ($1.9 $4. 7 $5.0 15. 9% 0.2 ($0. 8 0.9 ($1.2% 12.9 0.02 0. 3 15.7) ($4.1 1. 8 47.1 $7.0% 11. 4 $5.2% $100. 66) 39.6% 3.3% $69.8 $0.3) $67.0% 11. 4 60. 2% 7.0 $0. 3 42.56) 39.8% -23. 0 $1. 4% 2. 3) ($1.0 $1.0 $0. 01 0.0 $3.7% 3.5) $0.5% -1. 11 0.7% 4.6 38.1 ($7.0% 10.1 $22. 2 $0.2 55.0 $0.9% -0.6) ($26.0 $0.9) $7.6 $4.0) ($2.3 (i) 9.0% -160.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 295: CSUN Income Statement FYE: D ecember R evenue QoQ YoY C os t of Goods Gros s P rofit R &D Selling. 0% 1.12 46.9 Q4 Q1E Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E ($3.3 15.6% 5.0 ($6. 1 Fi scal 2010E Q2E Q3E $111. 0 $0.7% -1.3 -39.6 39.0% $1.6% 143.6 39.4) Source: Company reports.0) Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 $7. General & Adm in. 8% -219.1% 33.1 $3.2 -63.8 41. 9) $0. 5% ($10.1% 0.2 Fiscal 2008 $350. 7 $3.0% 5.0% $1. 01 39.5 $4. 0 $11.3% 5. 8% -24.4% -60.6 $4.0% $17.4 $0.6 $4. 4 $19.0% 5. 13) 41.0 $0.7 $4.0 $0.3% 7. 0% 4.9 41. 8 $0.4 1.1 10. 8 $0.5 ($1. 3) ($1.3 1. 03 42.9% 6.0 $0.3% $2. 9) ($1. 3% $66.7 -29. 0 47.Fully D il uted (M) Percent of Sales Gros s Margin Inc rement al Gross Margin R &D SG&A Operating Income N et Income Tax Rate ($1. 0% -377.0 $5. 0% 4. 1% -7.9 $8.1 $0. 8 $0. 3 $1. 9% 13.1% 0.1 0. 5 ($28.0% 14.6% 4.5 13.5% ($5.9) $0.4% $32.5) (0.5 $5. 7% 12.8% 39. 9) ($2.8% 147. 2 $15. 2% 7.6) -149. 0 $11.1 10.0% $1.8 $39. 0% 11.0% $0. 0 44.3 $5.2% 0.4 $4.3% -7.5 $141.4% 4.9 $0.4) ($7.1 0.6 1.40 46.4% 8. 2 -146.4% 10. 4 $2. 9) Fiscal 2009E $2. 3) Fiscal 2008E ($1.3% $1.0% 3. 0 ($26. 0 $1. 4) Q1E $30. 1 $8.4% -0.3 $0.6% $2.40 0.5 $0.2) $2.7% 0.0% $175. 3% 1239. 9) $4.0 $0.2 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 $111.1 ($1.5 15.6) $8.0 $0.4 $18.6 $0.4% 0.1% -2.4) $6.9 1.9 $0. 2% -8. 3) $0.8 Fiscal 2010E $37. 7) $0.5 $5.2 $14.2% 148.5 $1.0% $2.5% -45.4% 12.0 $52.7 7.0% 4. 6% 4.0 $19.0 $0.0 $0. 8) ($7. 6 -25% Fiscal 2010E $523.1 $5.1 ($4. 5) $242.0 $1. 1) ($8. 0 0.3 1.0 ($7.6 $18.1 1. 2) $465.1 $4.

5 $124 0 . net % Sale s Other Receivabl es In ve nto ri es % Sa les Advance to Suppli ers Amo unt due from rel ated compani es an d o ther current li abil iti es Tota l Cur rent Assets Property.45 ($0 .-----------$ 404 $403 === === = ==== = $ 103 $15 $3 15% $2 $5 $1 $ 129 $1 $31 $55 $1 $ 218 $0 $0 $103 $ 15 $9 1 5% $2 $5 $1 $135 $1 $ 31 $ 55 $1 $224 $0 $0 $73 $27 $27 35% $11 $53 70% $34 $18 $24 4 $11 4 $2 $0 $42 -----------$40 2 === === $10 3 $15 $11 15% $2 $5 $1 $13 8 $1 $31 $55 $1 $22 6 $0 $0 -----------$17 6 -----------$40 2 === === $104.94 $1 .38 $4.1 40 1.0 -----------.29) $4.1 40 17 % 15 % 8% 8% 4% 1 .9 0.2 70 6% (2 %) 4% 5% 3% 1.0 % 2.0 $37 $67 $55 $27 $27 $27 $33 $15 $17 30% 10% 10% $11 $11 $11 $76 $62 $68 70% 40% 40% $34 $34 $34 $18 $18 $18 $ 236 $23 5 $231 $ 128 $14 2 $156 $2 $2 $2 $0 $0 $0 $42 $42 $42 -----------.3 1.4 $1 07 0.4 3 $ 0.0% 58.-----------$ 409 $42 1 $432 == ==== = === == == ==== $ 103 $15 $16 15% $2 $5 $1 $ 142 $1 $31 $55 $1 $ 231 $0 $0 $10 3 $15 $23 15% $2 $5 $1 $14 9 $1 $31 $55 $1 $23 8 $0 $0 $103 $15 $26 15% $2 $5 $1 $152 $1 $31 $55 $1 $240 $0 $0 $ 43 $ 27 $ 18 1 0% $ 11 $ 73 4 0% $ 34 $ 18 $225 $172 $2 $0 $ 42 -----------$441 = ==== = $103 $ 15 $ 27 1 5% $2 $5 $1 $154 $1 $ 31 $ 55 $1 $242 $0 $0 -----------$199 -----------$441 = ==== = $ 104.4 1.76 32 5.47 9 9 .Ca pex/Interes t Book & C ash Value Book Va lue Per Share Cash Per Share Net C ash Per Sh are Tangibl e Boo k value Sources: Company reports & Barcla ys Capital estimates Note: All numbers in USD MM un less otherwi se noted Q1 Q2 Fiscal 2 008 Q3 Q4E Q1 E Q 2E Fis cal 200 9 Q3E Q 4E Q1E Q 2E Fisca l 2010 Q 3E Q 4E $110 $2 6 $9 12 % $1 9 $5 4 69.-----------.50 $1.0 $ 104.5 % $39 $4 $26 0 $84 $2 $1 $0 -----------$34 6 ==== == $12 3 $0 $11 10% $7 $4 $1 $14 6 $0 $0 $0 $1 $14 7 $0 $0 -----------$19 9 -----------$34 6 ==== == $123.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 296: CSUN Balance Sheet BALANC E SHEET FYE: December Assets Cur rent Assets: Cash and cash e quivalen ts Restri cted Cash Acco unts receivabl e.3 0% $0.3% 54.0 $0.5 % 34.92 $0.9 6 $ 1.0 -----------.0 1% (5%) 1% 1% 1% 0 .02 $0.35 37 5.20 Source: Company reports.7 1.38 $3.2% 1.8 $158 0 .3% 57 .6 7 $4.5% 35.4 68 4% (9%) 2% 2% 2% 1.5% -2.0 $28 $27 $20 10% $11 $80 40% $34 $18 $219 $189 $2 $0 $42 -----------$452 == ==== $103 $15 $30 15% $2 $5 $1 $156 $1 $31 $55 $1 $245 $0 $0 -----------$207 -----------$452 == ==== $10 4.1 $94 0 .03 $4.92 11 5.5% 36.0 ) $ 0.58 ($1.4 $0.-----------$ 186 $179 -----------.9 $1 45 0.0 $10 4.5% -5.5 4.6 35 (17%) (2 %) (8 %) (12%) (23%) 0.4% 33.-----------$ 409 $42 1 $432 == ==== = === == == ==== $10 4.9 75 (8 %) (14%) (4 %) (4 %) (5 %) 0.5% 3 5.4% $34 $18 $300 $88 $2 $0 $42 -----------$432 == ==== $103 $15 $15 13% $2 $5 $1 $141 $1 $31 $55 $1 $230 $0 $0 -----------$202 -----------$432 == ==== $10 4.3 0% $0.0 1.1 71 (16%) (7%) (8%) (12%) (37%) 0.3 -15% ($18.1 40 17 % 6% 8% 9% 5% 1.9 1.78 ($0.0 1. 2009 273 .9 $ 135 0.80) $3 .8 0% ($ 0.5% 36 .8% -4.1% 51.-----------.2 4.06 27 5.20 $0.5% 3 7.5 $120 0.0 2 $ 4.70 ) $ 3.5 % 36.0 1.-----------$ 404 $403 === === = ==== = $104 .2 2 .2 0.3 0% $0.25) $4.1 71 11% (2%) 5% 6% 3% 1.3 5.5 5.0 $ 148 $ 93 $27 $ 27 $8 $ 24 40% 4 0% $11 $ 11 $16 $ 47 80% 8 0% $34 $ 34 $18 $ 18 $ 264 $255 $95 $103 $2 $2 $0 $0 $42 $ 42 -----------.7 0.0 $122 $57 $16 14% $11 $41 34.-----------$ 178 $18 3 $191 -----------.03) $4.0 $ 72 0.0 $0.58 9 9.27) $4.3 % 0.81 ($1.6 38 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1 .0 $0.5% 37.29 5 9 .0 $104.13 $ 3.0 $0.2 1% $1.3 0% $0.10 $4.3 3.3 1.9 $4.3 0% $ 0.0 $0.0% 3 8.0 1.3 0% $ 0.9 9 $ 3.0 $ 0.8% 58.1 % 5 4.82 $ 4.2 $86 0.1% -4.13 $2.2 % 6 1.0 1 .8 1.9) $ 0.9 6 $3.7% -2. ne t Land use rights Deferred tax assets Other Long Te rm Assets Tota l Assets LIAB.4% 52.8 1.6 4.9 $63 0 .5% 50.1 1.44 $4.2 % 5 9.20 37 5.17 ($1.0 1 .6 5 ($ 0.99 $ 4.54) $4.0 73 (1 4%) (1 2%) (6%) (8%) (1 0%) 0.6 1.8% 63.9 1.04 $4.9 9 $4.0 $ 0.5 $11 4 0.0 0. Barclays Capital estimates May 01.1 $79 0 .-----------.3 0% $ 0.5 9 37 4.03 $1.0% 38.10 $0. p lant a nd e quipment.77 9 9.49) $3.1 1.6 1.9 1.8 1.5 5 .1 1.9 1.0% 56.2 1.3 0% $0.9 1 $ 4.1 1 $ 0.0 41 15% 12% 7% 8% 4% 1.4% $4 5 $1 $264 $6 6 $2 $0 $0 -----------$333 == === = $122 $0 $8 11 % $6 $3 $2 $140 $0 $0 $0 $1 $141 $0 $0 -----------$192 -----------$333 == === = $1 21.0 $1 42 $27 $15 40% $11 $29 80% $34 $18 $2 77 $93 $2 $0 $42 -----------$4 14 === === $1 03 $15 $5 15% $2 $5 $1 $1 32 $1 $31 $55 $1 $2 20 $0 $0 -----------$1 93 -----------$4 14 === === $104 .89 ($1.10 12 1 0.82 $2.6 6 9 9.15 ($0.3% -6.2% 2. & SHRHLDR S' EQU ITY S-Term Debt Notes Payabl e Trad e a ccou nts payable % Sa les Advance payme nts from customers Accrue d expe nses an d other payabl es Amo unt due to re lated parti es Tota l Cur rent Liabilities: L-Te rm Debt Coll ate ra l Account Pa yab le Convertible Bond Payable Deferred tax liab ility an d O th er non -cu rren t liab ilities Tota l Liabilities Minority Inter ests Redeemable convertible pre fe rred shares Shareholder s' Equity Total Liabilities & Shareholde rs' Equity Total Debt % Change Q/Q $ Change Check-sum Performanc e Metrics Profitability Ratios Return On Equity Return on Avg Equity Return On Assets Return On Net Assets Return On Sales Efficiency Ra tios Sales / Total Assets A/R Days Sal es O ut Invento ry Tu rn s Days o f In ve ntory Liquidity Ratios Current Rati o Qu ick Ratio Net W orking Capi tal ($M) Lon g-Term De bt / Equity Debt/Capital Total De bt / Equity EBITDA/Inte rest EBITDA.6 7 $ 3.9 % -5 .94 $4.6% -5.0 $12 4 $29 $6 5% $16 $42 3 7.4% 34.99 $3.0 $ 0.3 0% $0.0 $0.92 $3 .

0 16.0 0.6 350.0 480.0 0.3 0.9 Q4 1000.8% -18.43 0.39 1.0 594.0 250.5 0.0 86.5 469.5 124.33 2.0 110.33 0.0 16.5 2.0 450.9 74.0 195.0 210.3 480.72 -30% Sour ces: Company reports & Barc lays Capi tal es ti mates Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted 274 May 01.0 0.3 0.0 0.5 451.1 16.6% 9.0 125.0 210.0 0.44 0.0 0.0 522.0 0.5 550.15 2.4 0.49 0.0 411.0 480.2 86.0 0.74 290.9 1903.0 47.6% 9.7 115.19 $ $ $ $ 125.6 350.89 0.3 1579.0 135.94 2.0 522.0 -0.0 0.1 325.14 1.5% 174.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 174.0 0.0 0.15 0.6 0.3 405.0 0.0 250.1 18.3 341.0 0.0 125.0 0. 2009 .0 550.8 37.04 0.9 1581 .11 1.94 $ 7% -4% $ $ $ $ 414.0 434.9 1.9 5.0 594.0 0.9 45% 55% 3.0 0.9 414.0 0.8 19.5 50% 50% 3.1 120.7% 23.0 250.6% 1% 7% 10% 0.0 0.2 16.0 364.5 436.0 180.0 50% 50% 3.0 0.0 497.6% 9.0 0.94 3.13 4.0% 210.11 3.0 0.7 1883.6 % 120.9 405.29 162.4 0.3 0.3% 8.5% 497.9 3.5 0.0 414.3 0.0 350.4 451.0 16.0 0.12 $ 9% 4% $ $ $ $ 594.0 116.13 1.3 115.0 434.0 245.83 0.3 414.0 120.3 0.7 0.0 112.0 0.7 24.06 3.3 13.0 22% 78% 2.74 300.0 150.1% 116.0 0.0 74.0 480.6% 9.5 0.5 0.0 125.8% 22.0 480.34 1.6 98.94 3.0 16.24 2.0 451.5 Fiscal 2008E Q1E 1000.0 480.0 0.08 1.0 125.0 0.0 480.87 $ 2.0 30% 70% 2.0 0.5 488.0 0.1 25% 75% 3.5 0.68 $ -32% -3% $ $ $ $ 550.7 318.2 0.94 2.0 98.94 3.6 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 660.0 0.0 704.0 0.3 364.0 174.5 0.0 190.0 0.0 16.24 0.0 135.1 300.45 $ -5% -12% 1921.6 1.5 15.0 0.5 574.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.6 1.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 297: STP Earnings Drivers FYE: December Annual Capacity (MW) Quar ter ly Capacity (MW) Available Capacity (MW) Q1 540.0 174.8 411.2 96.2 303.5 74.1 99.7 18.6 0.3 411.6 0.0 Fiscal 2009E Revenues PV Modules Wafer to modules Cell to modules Other PV cel ls PV integrati on services Total revenue MSK revenue Total (ex-MSK) revenue COGS PV Modules Wafer to modules Cell to modules Other PV cel ls PV integrati on services Total COGS Gr oss Profit PV Modules Wafer to modules Cell to modules Other Total profit Gr os s Mar gin (%) PV Modules Wafer to modules Cell to modules Other Total Mar gin Output (MW) PV Modules Wafer to modules Cell to modules Other PV cel ls PV integrati on services Total output Silicon Breakdown Spot Contract Costs ($/W) Spot Contract Processing Cos ts Silicon Pr ices ($/kg) Spot Contract Conver sion Efficiency Gr ams/Watt Check ASP ($/Watt) PV Modules y/y (%) q/q (%) $ $ $ $ $ 432.0 550.9 0.0 145.9 1923.94 2.1 0.0 0.5 0.21 0.0 0.0 26% 74% $ $ $ $ 2.0 0.3 97.0 0.6 1.07 0.0 0.47 1.0 0.0 0.80 145.5 0.7 0.0 414.0 165.5 145.6 -0.6 0.0 303.0 0.0 0.0 195.0 10% 90% 2.6% 9.5 116.43 $ 0.5% 17% 9% 15% 16.0 22% 78% 2.7 341.1% 22% 7% 10% 21.6% 9.9 338.3 3.5% 195.0 116.8 0.94 2.0 0.1% 150.3 0.0 1903.0 180.5 334.6 1.0 16.3 436.0 195.80 145.2 0.0 250.80 180.0 0.0 469.3 86.0 0.80 180.9 0.9 1.43 3.8 34.95 $ $ $ $ $ 480.81 1.6 303.2 1.5% 14% 9% 15% 13.9 22.0 16.2 47.0 0.3 0.0 Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E 1000.0 0.0 187.8 2.62 $ -24% -2% $ 1903.0 Q4E 1000.0 115.0 106.5 750.0 2.0 364.3 350.4 99.0 0.0 0.8 1544.5% 16% 9% 15% 15.0 0.43 1.0 4.5 0.24 0.0 250.0 0.0 0.0 405.0 145.0 0.0 1000.76 $ -33% -2% $ $ $ $ 522.0 99.80 96.0 0.0 704.5 9.43 704.6% 9.0 1923.5 21.5 522.89 0.5 43% 58% 3.0 0.0 0.0 160.5 146.80 $ -29% -19% 2.0 210.9 145.6% 9.7 18.1% 24% 7% 10% 24.0 125.0 0.9 336.0 0.0% 18% 9% 15% 18.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 16.01 0.73 110.94 3.5% 110.3 47.0 436.0 0.1 0.

4% 32 .4% .2 15 .15.4 $ 115 .6 $41 .8 15 6.1 6.5 $6.0 .8 185 .0% .2 14.5 42.0% $9 .0 % 7 .6 $3 42.6% 70 .5% 27.0 ($8 .5) ($ 4.1 $1 60.0 $42 .4 $4 3.15 15 5.6 % -1 33 .0% ($3 .4% 11.1 2.6 .33 15 5.1% $ 405 .7 % 3 .8) ($0 .8 156 .9 ($7 4.0% 0.8 156 .2 $5 94.5 6.8 $46 .2 2 .1 % 12.2 % 11.6 $59 .5 $3 9.7 $36 .0 $55 .3 $1 45.3 % ($1 37.1 $ 0.3% 15 8.6 $4 4.9% 8.4 10 .5 5.8 $31 .5 $3 09.0 % $ 6.5 96.9 Q4 E $ 550 .1 ($5 .2% 6.2% $9 .0 % ( $41 .5% 33.0 ) $3.2 ) ($3 .5% 18 .4 6 .8 % 7 .0 $ 5.0% -12 1.3% $3 03.1 $1 7.4 $1 82.5 $3 9.1 22.4% 4.2 $27 .9 $0 .0) $1 1.7% $ 1.2) -1 58 .20 $0.8 15 6.0 $ 0.4 $7 7.9 2.8 % 25.2 $ 4.1 2 .8 ) Fisc al 200 8 Q2 Q3 $8 7.0 ( $25 .5 % 9 .6 $63 .7% 11 .0 $31 .0 % $1 59.2 $ 180 .7% 8.6% .8 $ 0.4 $46 . Ope rating Ex pe ns es Ope rating Income Non opera ting (inc ome) ex pe ns e: Intere st in come (e xpe nse) Oth er in come (e xpen se) ($ 4.5 % ($1 19.4 $3.4 -30 .6% -15 .1 $3 7.1 173 .9) ($0 .5% 0.3 $5 22.03 ) 155 .0 $0.3 % Fisc al 2 00 8 $2 21.3 $ 1.6 $4 6.2% 0 .03 ) ( $0.0% 16.1 $0.9 $ 3.9 18 5.15 $0 .1 % -7.9 $0.4 % 6 .1 $5 5.6 $61 .0 $0.0 ($ 4.5% $ 7.9 18.1 Q4 $ 414 .0% 9.1 $96 .9% 11 .8 30 3.5 % $10 .5 ($ 4.0% 46 .7% $3 1.5 9 .0% 18 .6 $4 36.5% $1 1.0 $38 .0% $8 .9 ) ($6 5.5 ) 16 .8% 11.0% -10 .0 $5 1.5 $ 1.0 $6 5.6% $ 158 .1 % 0.9 $60 .4 $0.5% 11 .2% 34.3 $1 2.7 $ 126 .1 $1 3.4 % 8.8 $3.1 $69 .3 % 57.3 $5 1.6 % 5 .3 $3 8.0% 4 54.0 $2 2.0 $ 100 .6% 16.6% 2 .8% $ 221 .0 % ($1 86.1 $2.5% 9 .0 6 .3 % $ 110 .1 $0.0% $ 246 .50.9 $ 5.0 $55 .3 Non opera ting (inc ome) ex pe ns e Inc ome (los s) before ta xes Inc ome Ta x Expens e Net Income (loss ) b4 minority int.0% 1.5 % 5 .9 ) Q4 ($3 2.4% $ 273 .0 $6 8.5 Q1 $4 34.3 1 06.9 $15 .1 $1 28.8 $34 .58 0.6 2.0% ($9 7.1 $ 0.9 % 8 .36 $0.1 6.1% 21.0 $ 113 .3% 4.0 ) ( $44 .1 Q1E $ 7.9 03.0 2.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 298: STP Income Statement FYE : Dece mber Rev enue QoQ Yo Y Cos t of Good s Gr oss Profit R&D Sell ing .5 Fis ca l 20 09E $1 .7% ($4 0.7 2 .6 $2.4 $ 2.8 $2 2.0 % ( $96 .8 ) ($8 .7) FYE : Dece mber Pro Forma EBITDA % Change Y/Y % Change Q/Q % Sales LTM EBITDA Capital Spending % of S ales Depr eciation % of COGS FCF Ops Est.1% $3 38.90.8 $ 10 9.9% 13.19.2 $97 .8) Q1E $3 50.2 % 24 .5 $4.8 $3 47.8 % 6 .6% 11.9% 0 .5 $ 163 .7) ($8 .7 2 . Mino rity In te rest Equ ity i n (lo ss) e arn ing s of a ffi lia te s Net income EPS basi c i nco me (lo ss) p er ADS EPS dilute d income (loss ) per ADS Weig hted a vera ge sh ares u sed Avg Sha res .3 $86 .0% $4 4.4 $4 66.4 $4.3 -5 91.9 $7 4.62 154 .4 $9 9.5% 20 .0 $2 5.1 $ 3.9 $3 0.0 ) $3.8% 22.1 $0 .8 15 5.3 % -1 .65 $0 .3 % 76.5% 23.5 $4 1.3% 11 .0% $2 28.7 $55 .7 $62 .0 $34 .0) $ 2.0% 15 .8 $31 .2 $0 .5 37 .6 % 7 .3 $1 11.6% 9 .1% 0 .0 ) ($2 2.4% 25 .0 -2 98 .2 ($4 3.1% 42 .8 $1 09.92 3.5 $54 .1% 0.2% 12.3 $ 0.3 ($6 5.4 ) $0.42 $0 . (CFO-Cape x) Q1 $69 .9) ( $19 .2 ) Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports.42) 15 5.6% 0 .3 % 14.4 $1 13.5 12 1.0% $1 .0% 0 .7% $ 364 .4 ) ($3 2.6 % 31 .8% 7.9 Fisc al 200 9E Q2 E Q3E $ 480 .9 $0.7 ) Fisc al 200 9E Q2 E Q3E $3 8.3 $ 4.0% 8 .5 $ 100 .2% 10 .3 $39 .3% 16 .72 $0.0 % $ 8.8 $0.8 % 0.3 2 .5 ($8 .1% 9 .7 $48 .0 $0.12.33 153 .33 $0 .1% 13 .38 15 3.0 Fisc al 2 00 8 $ 1.7 ) Q4 E $6 4.9) ($ 8.9 % 11.6 -55 .8 15 6. Barclays Capital estimates May 01.9) $1 02.9 -1.20 155 .8 2.7% 7.3% 53.1 $ 5.0 $7 3.42) ($0 . Ge nera l & Admin .33 155 .0) $ 2.5 $41 .0 ($ 8.65 15 5.0) $ 3.2% 16.3 $87 .6% 6.9% 8.9 $0.5% 221 .5% 5.Fu lly Dilu te d (M) Per cent of Sa le s Gr oss Marg in In creme ntal Gro ss Ma rgi n R&D SG&A Op era ti ng Inco me Net Incom e Ta x Rate $ 1.4 $ 0.1) $ 0.2 $47 .8 $0.4 $ 0.0 $5.3 $ 147 .4 6 .6) ($ 0.1 $4.8 $9.5 ) $5 7.1% 10 .3 $ 4.0% 17.36 $0.4 $ 3.5 $6 4. 2009 275 .5 $3 0.1% $39 .8 ) ($ 7.7 175 .1 $3 8.0 7.0 $ 0.8% 51 .4% 26.2% $ 412 .1 ($2 .3% 11 .9% 0.8% $ 451 .8 $0 .2% 1 .2 % 14.3 $33 .6% 5.8 $ 307 .8 Fisc al 200 8 Q2 Q3 $ 480 .3 $3 5.0% Fis ca l 20 09E $ 158 .1) ( $0.0 $0.

1% -6 .26 ($7.9% 57 .4 % 152.2 49 -----.7 % 6 1.2% 157 .82 $2 .08 8 $5 8 $1 .6 25.8 1 $3 .1 43 $8 ====== $6 38 $1 17 $2 21 $9 77 $9 87 $1 81 $2. net Other non -cu rre nt assets Total Ass ets Q1 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1E Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E Q4E $1 .7 0.191 $7 11 $1 77 $1.75 8 $1 8 ====== $55 6 $76 $11 4 $74 6 $1.145 --.786.64 50 6.0 97 -----.0 ====== $1 .-----$3.06 6 $41 3 $71 $28 6 55% $28 7 55% $76 $57 $16 6 $1.6 1.79) $8.7% 13 6.1 51 0.45 55 6.$3.0 $ 0.995 ---.9 3.341 .33 7 ------.4 0.-$2 .04 $3.625.14 $2.-$1 .------.87 ($2.0 -3.4 1 $7.149 --.6% -1 7.1 0 .369 ---.7 7% $110.02 0 $9 8 $271 62 % $178 41 % $109 $8 2 $151 $1 .77 ) $7 .2% 4.6 4 ($ 7.$1.8 1 $6.3% 15 8.2 7 ($5 .----$3.1 2.066 $455 $7 1 $263 55 % $267 56 % $7 6 $5 7 $166 $1 .0 ====== $1.$3.04 $ 6.066 --.341 .5) $0.6 1.4% 61.0 46 0.420 ====== Total Debt % Change Q/Q $ Change Che ck-su m $1.74 2 ------.6 1.4% -12 .579 $ 575 $ 161 $1.4 1 $ 2.71 36 7. net % Sa les Inventories % Sales Valu e-added tax re co verable Advances to rel ated party suppl iers Other current assets Total Current A ssets Net PP&E Inta ngib le assets.$1.5 1 47 7.63 $7 .271 --.63 $2.5 -1.6 0% $0.------.Capex/Interes t Book & Cash Va lue Book Value Per Share Cash Per Share Net Cash Per Sha re Tangi ble Book va lue S ources: Company reports & B arclays Capital est imates Not e: Al l Num bers i n US D M M un less oth erwise not ed 1.----$2.94) $5.145 --.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 299: STP Balance Sheet F YE: Decemb er BALANCE SHE ET Ass ets Current As sets: Cash and cash eq uivale nts Restricted Cash Accounts rece ivable .-$965 ------.------.-$3 .530.6 0% $0 .1 $3 79 80 .0 9% $14 5.911 $6 ====== $ 704 $85 $ 162 $ 950 $1.6 1.1 $34 5 90.7 0.50) $6.------.0 Perf ormance Metrics Profitability Ratios Return On Equ ity Return on Avg Eq uity Return On Assets Return On Ne t Asse ts Return On Sal es Effic iency Ratios Sale s / Total Asse ts A/R Da ys Sale s Ou t Inventory Turns Days of Inventory 23 % 22 % 8% 13 % 13 % 24% 22% 9% 11% 14% 20 % 20 % 7% 8% 9% (24%) 1 0% (8%) (10%) (16%) (2%) 5% (1%) (1%) (1%) 8% 1% 3% 3% 5% 10% (1% ) 4% 4% 6% 16 % 8% 6% 7% 9% 0 .50) $7.077 ---.221 ---.9 $8 29 100.6 0% $0. & SHRHLDRS' EQUITY S-Term De bt Accounts p ayable Other cu rre nt li abil ities Total Current Liabilities: L-Term Deb t Other non -cu rre nt li abil ities Total Liabilitie s Minori ty interest Shar eholders ' Equity Total Liabilities & Shareholders' Equity ====== $443 $7 3 $9 7 $612 $1 .1% 127 .4 $ 629 95.19 1 ------.0 $0.7 0.575 $41 2 $15 8 $85 0 $ 395 $ 124 $ 233 39 % $ 248 42 % $ 202 $77 $ 301 $1.0 ====== $1.0% 59.0 $0.1 60 Liquidity R atios Curre nt Ratio Quick Rati o Net Wo rki ng Capi tal ($M) Lo ng-Te rm Debt / Equity Deb t/Capi ta l Tota l Debt / Eq uity EBITDA/Intere st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ay 01.6 48 0.9 % 162.82 $8.---$ 3.000 --.

14 -1% $ 2.0 Total Production (MW) 29.0% 23.3 $ 8% 89% 64.0 $ 19.0 Total Revenues $ 95.26% 2.88 -5% $ 1.92 $ -1% 1.9 453.3 2.1 $ 68.4 $ 333.8 Cost per Watt Y /Y (%) $ 2.9 $ 85.0 200.71 -11% $ 2.0% 31.7 $ 17% 111% 97.0 89.0 50.0 2.5 32.0 $ $ $ 62.0 $ 63.9 $ 15% 233% 577.1% 24.3 72.09 $ .0 48% 30.2% 23.9 $ 50.0% 26.3% Total Gross Margin 33.40% 1.98 $ -15% 2.1% 62.99 $ -11% 2.1 66% 178% $ 207.0 200.0 41.2 $ 79.33 $ -16% 2.0 105.9 48.5 117% ASPs ($/W) Y /Y ( %) $ 3.0 $ 16.0 $ 4.8 33% -9% 84% Ot her Revenues $ 6.5 22.8 $ 103.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 300: ENER Ea rnings Drivers Fiscal 2009E FY E: June Q1 Q2 Q3E Q4E Fiscal 2009E Q1E Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E Q4E Fiscal 2010E Annual Capacity (MW) 178.3 232.1% 24.4 S olar Gross Margin 31.7% 27.0 200.3% 26.6% 36.9 $ 138.3% 35.0 300.04 $ -24% 1.88 $ -12% 1.0 $ 4.0 90.2 $ 112.9% 19.0 Quart erly Capacity (MW) 44.0 $ 4.5 59.04 $ .1 $ 2.7 $ 2.9 $ $ $ 82.63 $ -12% 2.9 $ 47.92 -6% Cost of revenues Cost of product revenues Cost of rev s fr om pdt dev agreements and other costs $ $ $ 63.8% 19.0 $ 66.87 $ .0 178.0 50.1 $ 81.7 $ 66.5 107.7 $ 61.5 50.1 $ 5.4 -4% -19% $ 314.6 $ 34% 12% 180.2 30% $ 108.7% 27.0 $ 4.7 $ -34% .99 -5% $ 1. 2009 277 .7 2.0 360.77 -10% $ 2.2% 31.9 $ 593.5 $ 2.2 135.9 $ 228.5 44.1 $ 211.5% S ources: Company reports & Barclays Capital estimates Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted May 01.8 $ 4.9 $ $ $ 170.50 -13% $ 2.6 $ 167.6 $ 184.54 -13% S olar P roduct Revenues Q/Q (%) Y /Y ( %) $ 89.94 $ -31% 1.92 $ -14% 2.5% 2.9 $ 4.5 22.4 $ 44.6 2.0 75.3 $ 2.0 420.

5 $59.4 Q4E $66.0% 19.3% 253.2 $21.9 30.2% $0.0 $1.00 43.6 6.9% 4.0 $0.2% ($33.5 $0.9% 2.6% 6.30 $0.2% 0.0 $0.3% 10.2 $18.0 43.7 $6.4% 13.0 $0.9% ($21.2% 103.33 $0.8% $51.1% $10.6 $19.0 8.0 $0.6 $0.6) Q1E $85.7 -431.1 $17.5% $10.1 $68.0 $2.4 $66.2 44.3% 3.4 $14.7 $0.0 15.6 43.6 44.8% 9.3% 14.6% 16.0 $0.0) $0.2 28.1% 13.4% -60.8% $0.8% 225.0 16.7 $1. net Nonoperating (income) expense Income (loss) before taxes.1% 3.3% 5.2 $0.0 $59.0% 21.8 Fiscal 2009E Q2 Q3E $103.8 $0.0 $14.0 $0.4 -1054.6 $14.5 $1.0 $1.4 $21.9 $1.3% 16.34 $0.4 $7.2 $74.2 $1.0 $14.1% $31.4 64% 16.5% 26.6 $0.2 34.0% 16.0% 46.0 $1.0 $2.equity income JV s Cash Income Tax Income (loss) before equity income JV s Discont inued Operations M inorit y interests loss (income) Net Income (loss) Cumulative preferred stoc k dividends Net Income Percent of Revenue Basic EPS Diluted EPS Weighted av erage s hares used Avg Shares .0 $23.1% 6. (CFO .6% $8.18 $0.2 $21.1 $32.3 $70.0% ($29.5 $9.0% 7.4% 8.9% 16.9% $0.8 $0.5 $0.5 $0.8 2.4% $50.0 $7.661 13.7 $0.8 88.5% -16.6% 11.4% 10.0 $0.0% $0.9% $99.9 $19.1% $10.2% ($72.0 $0.0 19.5 $8.0 41.0% 15.6% $40.0 $1.0 $12.3 $14.0 10.0% ($20.0 23.8 7.0% -5.4% 23.5% 1.0 $0.8 43.5% ($0.9% ($35.0 7.2 $21.0% 24.9% $0.33 42.7% 1.1 $12.1% 2.1% 20.4 $0.6 $0.5% 9.6 $41.6% 18.2% 63.2 $4.Fully Diluted (M) P ercent of Sales Gross Margin Increm ental Gross Margin S G&A R&D Operating Income Net Income Tax Rate Q1 $95.7 $0.29 42.4 43.6) Q4E $4.43 43.2% 14.8 $0.8% 1.0 $1.4% 9.4% $1.0% 31.4% 8.0 $1.0% 15.6 Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E $112.5 ( $1.0 $14.8 $2.0) Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports.2% 13.6 Q4E $211.4 FY 2009E $333.0% 27.0 $0.0 $17.2 $0.4 $2.5% 18.8 $17.3% -19.2 $19.5 $22.4% 82.7 7.1 $2.9% 15.6) Q4E $29.8) $35.0 7.2% ($27.0) -7.1 $12.7% -1.7% 6.5 FY 2010E $593.6% 1.1% 0.6 $184.5 $3.0 $2.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 301: ENER Income Statement FYE : June Revenue QoQ YoY Cos t of Goods Gross Profit General.0 11.0% $62.8 16.3 44.5 $0.0 $19.4 44.33 43.0 $0.04 $0.7% ($183.4 556.6 $3.0 $0.5 $6.2 $0.0 $1.5 ($5.9 $0.0 $29.4% -7.6% $63.2% 16.55 42.7 $10.7 $56.4 $8.3 $1.0 $1.0 16.0 $14.2% 204.0 $0.0 $2.0 16.0 $44.8% 9.4% -11.56 $0.5% 31.0 $2.3 $1.5 $106.2 $23.8% ($54.9 $46.4% 16.3 54.0 ($5.0 ($3. A dmin. P reproduc tion costs R&D and Patents Res tr ucturing and other costs Operating Expenses Operating Income Nonoperating (income) expense: Interest expense (income) Other .7 $0.2 13.8 $14.0% FY 2010E $99.8% 7.44 $0.0 $37.12) ($0.0 $0.9 $47.5 $1.2 $17.0% 36.8 $0.8 $81.2 $30.0 $0.5 $4.5 $0.3% 41.4 $35.9 49.9 15.1% $54.0 $0.5% $227. Barclays Capital estimates 278 May 01.0 $2.2 $18.4 $44.0 $19.3 $18.2% 1.0% 42.0 $0.8 85.6 $77.5 $1.0% 17.8 $15.8 77.1% 28.9% $66.04 42.1 $0.7% $44.5 $16.0 $7.3% $0.2 $14.8 6.0 $0.0 $7.5 -69.0 $0.5 $7.9% FY 2009E $60.6% 2. 2009 .9 $3.1) $1.5 $2.7 $0.9% 16.18 43.4 $2.6 $58.8% ($140.6 239% 18.7) Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E $20.9) $1.6% 21.5% -52.8 $0.1% 219.8 66.4% 13.0 $1.0 $12.6 3.4 -3.0 $19.6% $8.7% -33.0% $82.9% 21.1) ($0.2 $15.1 ($0.1 $1.0 5.0 $52.8 $13.5% 23.0% 61.8 $0.5 $35.0 $2.0) $5.06 $0.4 $35.1% $0.0 $23.4% -15.02 $1.1 32.7% $60.0) $0.7% FYE : June P ro Forma EBITDA % Change Y/Y % Change Q/Q % Sales LTM EBITDA Capital Spending % of Sales Depreciation % of COGs FCF Ops E st.1 $2.2% 17.6 -29.4% 2.0 12.2 $24.3 $2.0) $58.5% 0.0 $2.0 $2.11) 42.4 $140.5 $14.9) Q1E $14.6 -13.9 $15.CapEx) Q1 $20.3% 168.2 43.1 13.0 $1.1) ($5.8 $138.0 31.7% 1.0 $0.5 $24.06 43.0 $11.0 $44.2 $45.6% $71.6% -5.0 12.4 ($0.0 $22.0 $0.0 ($5.6 $0.8% 66.6) Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E $24.8 $34.0 $7.1% 23.6% $8.7% $0.1% $170.7 $2.1% 38.8% $453.1) $140.0 $2. & Mktg.0 $0.0 $1.7% 9.0% $10.9% 2.2% 1.0 $0.0 $2.5 43.1) $220.0% $7.9% 17.0 $2.

2 $ 0.1% 33 .87 $5 .41 $7 .5% 48.7 -13.5 $0.7% 32.0 75 ====== $0 $ 58 6 1% $4 $1 $3 $3 $ 68 $31 6 $0 $0 $0 $ 34 $4 18.25 62 7 .2 -2 3.1 8 .50 7 ====== $3 49.94 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 0.3% $ 15.15 ($0.3 6.070 ====== $349 .099.077 ====== $34 9.42 $7 .68 May 01.5% $ 15.5 $0.5 56 1.5 3.2% 162 .1 $40 9 51 .03 $1.0 $0.20 ($2.5 $0.8% 48.0 $3 87 $11 $0 $46 67% $29 43% $1 $0 $4 75 $5 37 $64 -----------$1.9 % $1 6.8% 51 .0 -204 .8 6 ($0 .0 75 ====== $ 316.51 $6 .0 6 .3 8 62 6.6 48 0.6 -31 .Ca pex/In te rest Op Inc / Asse ts.5 $0 .0 $0. Ca sh B ook & Cash Va lue Boo k Va lue Per Share C ash Per Sh are N et Ca sh Pe r Sha re Tang ibl e Bo ok va lue Sou rces: Co mpany repo rts & Ba rclays Capi ta l e sti mate s 8% 4% 5% 8% 1 3% 0.60 $ 9.3 ($1.7% $15.9 53 1 .45 ) $ 14.5 $ 0. wag es a nd amou nts wi thh eld from emplo yees R estru ctu ring reserve D eferred reven ues C urrent portion o f deferre d patent licen se fee Tota l Curre nt Liabilities: L -Te rm De bt L T Restructurin g Reserve L T Deferre d patent licen cse fee D eferred tax l iab ilitie s N onrefun dabl e Ad vance Roya lties and othe r li abil ities Tota l Lia bilities Min ority i nterests Share holder s' Equity Tota l Liabilities & Shar eholde rs' Equity Tota l Debt % Change Q/Q $ Change C heck-sum Q1 Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E Q4E Q1E Fis cal 201 0E Q2E Q3E Q4 E $46 7 $ 11 $0 $ 63 6 6% $ 34 3 6% $2 $7 $58 4 $44 3 $ 47 -----------$ 1.2 18 ====== $3 49.070 ====== $0 $48 72% $0 $0 $0 $0 $48 $3 49 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3 97 -----------$6 73 -----------$1. exc.12 $14 .851 -----------$65 6 -----------$ 1.14 1% 6% 1% 1% 3% 0.11 $3.0 $0 .4 49 1.2% $ 15.2 9.114 ====== $0 $ 81 7 2% $0 $0 $0 $0 $ 81 $34 9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43 0 -----------$68 3 -----------$ 1.20 ) $ 14.1% 13.1% 51.94 5% 1% 3% 4% 7% 0.1 52 0 .62 62 7.0 $574 48.5 $41 1 51 .0 -36.184 ====== $0 $13 2 7 2% $0 $0 $0 $0 $13 2 $34 9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $48 1 -----------$70 2 -----------$ 1.184 ====== $ 349.5% 3 4.9 $45 6 49 .12 (3 %) 4% (2 %) (3 %) (7 %) 0.1 00 ====== $0 $ 74 7 2% $0 $0 $0 $0 $ 74 $349 $0 $0 $0 $0 $423 -----------$676 -----------$1.0 $0.2 51 1 .0 4 .42 8% 6% 5% 6% 7% 0 .0 $30 2 $ 11 $0 $ 58 6 7% $ 36 4 3% $1 $0 $40 9 $61 3 $ 64 -----------$ 1.7% 9.31 62 6.086 ====== $0 $ 61 7 2% $0 $0 $0 $0 $ 61 $34 9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41 0 -----------$67 6 -----------$ 1.0 $ 0.16 $ 1.8 53 1 .1) $0.6 % $1 5.2 $4 18 51 .76 $ 14. % Sal es Inven to ries % Sales Assets held for sale Pre paid a nd other current assets Tota l Curre nt Asse ts N et PP&E Other assets Tota l Ass ets LIAB.3 6 60 7.0% 5 1.24 $ 11.0 Pr ofitability R atios R etu rn On Equ ity R etu rn on Avg Eq uity R etu rn On Assets R etu rn On Ne t Assets R etu rn On Sal es Efficiency Ratios Sal es / Total Asse ts A/R Days Sales Out Inven to ry Turns D ays o f Inventory Liquidity R atios C urrent Ratio Quick Ra tio N et Workin g Capi ta l ($M) L ong-Term Deb t / Equ ity D ebt/C apital Total De bt / Eq uity EBITD A/Interest EBITD A.8 $549 51.9 2 .7% 33 .40 62 6.9 -9 .63 $1 0.95 $1 4.0 $24 1 $ 11 $0 $12 4 6 7% $ 79 4 3% $1 $0 $45 6 $66 3 $ 64 -----------$ 1.26 62 6.9 % 34 .66) $1 4.5 $0.7% 1 7.0 61 1.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 302: ENER Balance Sheet FYE: June B ALANC E SHEET As sets C urr ent As sets: C ash and cash eq uival ents Sh ort-term inve stmen ts R estri cte d Inve stmen ts Accou nts rece ivabl e.1 4) $13.7% 34.13 $5.6 1.086 ====== $ 349.70 ($2.7% NM NM 8.1 $ 475 5 1.0 $3 32 $11 $0 $45 67% $28 43% $1 $0 $4 18 $5 88 $64 -----------$1.4 8.2 8 .5% 7.a.0 $27 5 $ 11 $0 $ 76 6 7% $ 48 4 3% $1 $0 $41 1 $63 8 $ 64 -----------$ 1.05 1 1% 4% 6% 8% 1 0% 0.9 2.0 $220 $1 1 $0 $143 67 % $9 1 43 % $1 $0 $466 $688 $6 4 -----------$1 .5 $466 48.0 $423 $ 11 $0 $ 70 6 7% $ 44 4 3% $1 $0 $549 $486 $ 64 -----------$1 .114 ====== $ 349.6 1.1% 51 .82 ) $ 13.7% 34 .7 0 62 7.2% 32.2 -2.5 $33 .9 % 3 .2 % 51 . le ss al low for d.4 8.0 $0.49 ($1. 2009 279 .8% $ 15.7% NM NM 5 .14 8% 7% 5% 9% 1 4% 0 .2% 49 .1% $15 .2 18 ====== $0 $152 72 % $0 $0 $0 $0 $152 $349 $0 $0 $0 $0 $501 -----------$717 -----------$1 . & SHRH LDR S' EQUITY S-Term D ebt & Borrow ings Accou nts pa yable % sal es Sa larie s.077 ====== $0 $49 72% $0 $0 $0 $0 $49 $3 49 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3 99 -----------$6 78 -----------$1.

6 65% 148. 0 35.3 60% 123.3% 25.6 39.1 0.9 63% 115.7 61% 0. 9 56.6% 57. 0 235. 7 66% # 33. 6 0. 4 62% 0. 7 66% 45. 0 62% 0.2% 42. 7 82% 0.9 -216.2 39. 4 61.1 42. 6 38.0 61% 0.7 46. MM) C ost of revenues C ost of PV % of Revenue C ost of Poly % of Revenues Total Gross Profits PV Poly Total Margin Q1 Fi scal 2008 Q2 Q3 Q4 Fiscal 2008 Q1 Fiscal 2009E Q2 Q3 Q4E Fiscal 2009E Q1E Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E Q4E Fiscal 2010E Q1E Fiscal 2011E Q2E Q3E Q4E Fiscal 2011E 447 240 15 505 140 82 670 180 15 648 77 99 648 637 244 598 7 57 541 83 140 493 63 109 411 68 150 411 221 457 359 68 120 315 76 120 316 76 75 335 84 65 335 304 380 351 100 65 383 100 68 417 104 70 449 108 76 449 412 279 200 23 0 15 300 100 0 82 418 118 0 15 659 241 0 99 659 482 0 244 0 664 5 0 57 873 209 0 140 837 58 96 205 837 0 0 150 837 272 96 552 837 0 0 120 887 50 0 120 838 50 99 174 765 75 148 213 765 175 247 627 725 75 115 180 670 75 131 199 611 75 134 204 545 75 140 216 545 300 520 799 10.3 39. 0 260.0% # 45.8 56% 0.4 98.2 78.8 78.7 23.4 173.2 1. 6 0. 3 0. 0 5.3 38. 0 207.9 89. 7% 52.8% Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Barclays Capital estimates 280 May 01.3 62% 68. 1 62% 84. 0 66% 46.2 58% -0.7 60% 129.8 39. 7 46.0 1.9 40.4 66% 320.6 35.0 66% 46. 8% 24.9 54.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 303: GT Solar Revenue Drivers FYE: March PV Business D SS Furnace Back log f or PV Produc ts ($MM) Orders ($MM) PV Revenues Pol y B usi ness C VD R eactors Back log f or Poly Produc ts ($MM) Orders ($.6% 43.8 60% 109. 0 53.7 # 24. 0 60% 78. 9 39.1 83. 8 313.7 61% -1. 2 42.6 80. 0 61% -1.9 0. 0% 45.0 -31. 4 # 5.3 60% 120.3% 106.0 60% 93.0 57.0 60% 74. 0 0.0 46.7 59. 8 57% 59. 4 74.9 70. 9% -31.8 51% 59. 1 39. 7 93.6 60% 106.5 39. 4 60% 32. 0 65% 311.8 55.5 43. 4 46. 7 53.0 150. 7 47.1 42.4 39.9 243.6 53. 3 60% 131.4 232. 0 38.1 40. 3 # 74.5 62% 59.4 62% 80.3 61.8 52.9 0. 4 62% 0.3% 95.0 60% 74. 0% 28.3 66% 383. 2009 . 8 36. 2 85.2 62% 78. 6 38. 0 66% 10. 5 43. 7 148.3% 28. 8 66% 484.0 39.3 62% 88.5% 94.4% 144.8 68.0 45.4 0.3% 26.1% 24.7 45.0 45. 0% 195. MM) Pol y R evenues Total revenues ($. 3 34.7% 35.

7 $ 1.0 2.5 $ 0.0% 2 8.1 Fisc al 200 9E Q2 Q3 $ 140.5 $9.7 % 1 5.5 $ 99.4 $ 6.0 $0.0 $6.9 $9.6% 37.8 $ 6.6% 3 8.Fully Diluted (M) Q1 $57.0 Fis cal 20 10E $627 .7% 5 .7 $ 32.25 142 .0 $4.3 147.7% 5 .0% $ 12.6 $ 72.7% 25.5% 17.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 304: GT Solar Income Statement Numbers in Mi ll ions FYE: March R evenue QoQ Yo Y C ost of Goods Gross Profit R &D Sel lin g a nd Marketing Genera l And Admini strative Amortization of Intangi ble Asse ts Ope rating Expense s Ope rating Income N on oper ating (income) ex pense: Interest inco me (expen se ) Othe r in come (expe nse) N on oper ating (income) ex pense Income (loss ) before taxe s Income Tax Ex pense N et Inc ome (loss) Basi c in come (lo ss) per share ( i) D iluted income (loss) per share from Opera tio ns W ei ghted average shares used Av g Share s .19 142 .3% -14.5 $ 65.6 $ 2.2 -29.3 2 .6 3.0% 41.2 $3.0% 43.0 $ 0.0 % 2.8 $14.1 $5.1 $6 8.0% $74.0 $5.2 $ 16.4 $5.8 % 2.1 $1 7.1 $78 .3 $5.9 $2 7.0% $ 11.1 $ 69.8 $16.3% $161.0% 15.5 Fisca l 2008 $ 244.7 $17.6 $2.8 6.8 $29.7% 2 5.5 $ 33.3 0 1 42.2% 9.0 $174.0 ($ 1.7% 5.0) $165 .9% $1 29.1 % $174 .8 $0.0 $93.8% -20% 3 0.2 1 45.0% 5.5 $0.5 3.0 $33.5 $5.8 $106.1 % 8.7) $8.5 $22.0% 5 .0 % 3 8.3 14 7.0% 5 .4 $4.9 $0.3 1 47.3 147.0 -2 0.2 $8.0% $159 .1% 20.6% 15.2% $ 74.9% 1 1.3 $3.6 % 2 1.0 $45 .0 $83.7 $ 1.5 1.8% 20.3 $ 12.2 1.5 $3.6 $ 34.3 % 8.4 145 .0 $ 0.8 $ 43.3 $2.7 236.0 % 28.1 4 1 42.0% 36.1 $ 0.5 $21 .7 $4.8 $ 4.0% $195 .4 $4.0 % 110.2 $115 .6% $1 74.5 % $383 .0 -26.4% 2 7.9 $15 .3 % 38.0% $1 85.4 381% 31.0 % $ 167.4 ($4.7) $43 .7 -37 % 30.7% 2 9.0 $ 18.9 $ 26.4% $320 . 2009 281 .3 147.7 0 $ 0.8% 28.4 294.0 $8.1 $4.4 $0.1 5 $ 0.7 % $4.3 $45.0 $5.04 142.8 % 18.9 Fiscal 20 09E $552 .3 $0.04 $0.6% 39.1% 2.4 3 .0 $0.3 1 47.6% 39 .2 % $ 72.6 % 3 9.2 $ 20.2 $165 .8 $24.3 $54.0 % $ 3.0 2081 .9 $ 21.0 $4 7.6% 39.9% $ 151.19 $0.0% 2.0 $0.5% $ 171.2 ($1.1 3.6 $51 .9 % 1 8.9% $171 .7 % ($3.6 $14 .6% 14.4 ($1.2) ($3.0 % 3.0% 2 .9 ($1.2 $205 .7% 25 .4 % $198 .2 % 3 9.6 % FYE: Dece mber Pro Forma EB ITDA % Cha nge Y/Y % Cha nge Q/Q % Sale s LTM EBITDA C apital Spe nding % of Sales D epre cia tion % of COGS FCF Ops Est.6% 39 .0% $3.5 126.8 $2 4.8 $16.0% 3.0% 4.1 $12.1 2.4 $45.8 $18.6 -34 .5 $0.6% 4 2.5 2.7 Percent of Sales Gr oss Margin Incremental Gross Margin R&D Selling and M arketing General and Administrative Oper ating Income Net Inc ome Tax Rate 42.7 $1.7% $1.3 $3.3 0 $ 0.4 $3.7) ($0.3 $232 .2% $9.4 $ 65.6 % $43 .6% 14.0 % 2.23 142.18 142.8% 7.0 $0.9% Q1E $120 .6% 30.1% 53% 27 .6 8 1 42.3 147.0% $155.8 1 44.1 $ 0.4 $46 .0 $0.4 0 .0 ($4.8 % $1.3 1.5 $0.8% 3 1.7 $92 .8 $0.0 $ 6.6 $6.3 $10 .2 Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Barclays Capital estimates.6% 23 % 27.3) $1.0% 5.7 $58.3 63% 3 5.0% 39.6% 38.0 % 4.7 $1.9 $243 .8 $18 .20 $0.12 142.1) ($0 .1% $1.1 Q4E $2 12.1) ($1.7% 24.7 $ 4.4% -15 .8 $28.0% 45 .3 144 .8 $ 0.5 $ 27.7 $ 89.0 $57. (PF EBITDA + N I -Cape x) $9.9 $3.8% 4.8 $161 .0 2.3 $26.0 1.3 % 4.6 % 9.6 $ 3.5 1.2 $44 .4 $ 45.8% -14 % 26.7 $2.6 % 38.0) $ 35.6% 13.9 $100 . Company reports May 01.0 ($ 1.7% 5.4 $2.8 $7.7 $1.0 $0.4 $3.9 % 3 4.9 $3.3) $ 13.4) $166 .0 ($ 1.3 $42.3 $31.0 $1.9 % 3 9.2 3.8 28.18 14 2.0 ($1.8 % $4.3% 9.4 % 1 7.2 $ 0.19 $0 .2 $43 .8 3.4 2.1 $0.8 $ 18.5 $36 .4 1 46.0% $ 4.6% 4 6.0 $ 81.8 $3.6 9 1 42.4 2 .4% 2 .8 % 14.24 $0.5 $ 36.2 1 3.1 3.2 16.8 $3.0 ) $55.1 $ 67.6 % 3 8.25 $0.0% $1 67.7% 5.4% $6.0 ($1.1 $4 4.0 $3.0% $ 2.0 ) $43.6 3 .8 $ 11.8 $11.4 % Q4E $ 150.9 $28 .7% $44 .0 ) $29.3 $0 .5 2.1% $ 71.0) $4 5.0% $1 82.7) $50 .5 $10 .0% $164 .7 1 $ 0.7% 6.3 1.8% 39.0% 5.2% 4 3.13 $0.8 $61 .0 $ 13.3% 15 .0% $2.1 3 05.5 $ 71.8 22.8 ($1 .0 Fisca l 2010 E Q2E Q3E $1 20.9 $ 0.1 $0.6% 6.6 $0.3 $12.5 $32.

00 $0.71 $220.0% 0.02 $834.00 $1 8.00 $2 .84 24 16.0% 308.13 $1.00 $41.00 $2.00 $6.90 $ 42.81 $158.77 $0.97 152.00 $0.57 $0.8 $0.68 $0.00 $4.55 59.04 $0.60 $4.86 $153.60 25% $22 $307 $292 $24 $663.0% 0 .37 $80 4.8 1.00 $0.62 $31.41% $12.40 $103.48 $ 32.78 $627.00 $0.90 $0.30 $ 46.11 $0.Long T erm Due fro m Realized Parties Intangible assets.16 $766.04 $ 1.28 $0.0% 5.72 $307.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 305: GT Solar Balance Sheet Numbers in Mil lions Fiscal 2009E Q1 Q2 Q3 Q 4E Q1E F YE: March Assets Cu rrent Assets: Cash and cash equivalents Restricted Cash .37 $720.2 1.00 $0.00 $1.64 $5.22 $87 9.01 $ 0.00 $0 .46 $668.37 67% $63.0% 0.63 $1.07 $1.68 $ 0.00 $69.1 $45 0.34 $ 2.1 0.78 24 1 6.0% 30.00 $6.49 $1.42 $ 0.92 1 12% $143.2 $9 0 0.24 $797.00 $0.00 $69.71 $2 44.65 $0.2 3 6.0% 0.71 $260.00 $ 61.25 $234.23 $6.0% 0 .26% $22 $ 307 $ 292 $24 $713.65% $21 $311 $275 $11 $658.4 26.20 26% $18 15% $1 60.00 $69.28 $1.0% 30.0 0 $ 6.9 ($31 ) 0.4 8 $0.6 1.00 $2.65 $1.87 $128.1 178 0. Company reports 282 May 01.92 $0.0 $0.86 $1.63 $1.01 $0.80 $2.0 $0.51 41% $ 128 15% $160.56 $0.5 22 0.7 1.75 $1.6 0 $834.47 $ 27.04 37 3.31 61 2.00 $69.1 $38 0. & SHR HLDR S' EQU ITY Notes Paya ble Accoun ts Pa ya ble % COGS Accrued exp ense s Custome r Deposits Deferred Revenue Accrued Income Taxes To tal Curren t Liabilities : L -T erm Debt Deferred Income Taxes O ther non-current liabil iti es To tal Liabilities Sh areho ld ers' Eq uity T otal Liabilities & Sh areho lde rs' Eq uity $0.9 62.Current Accounts recei va ble.0% 0.80 $2.62 24 16.42 $0.0% 0.53 $1.19 $731.0% 51.00 $7.04 $0.3 1.62 $83.01 $0.77 $665.0 0.23 $1 9.00 $68.00 $ 23.90 $627.26 $0.80 $731.55 $0.6 0 $766.00 $2.00 $ 0.71 $274.33 26% $32 15% $16 0.60 $120.86 $153.42 $0 .00 $8.2 61.2 1.26 $0 .61 $ 0.6 5 $0.00 $3.9 $7 0.00 $ 69.20 26% $18 15% $160.86 $1 53.81 30 3.0 $0.00 $0.76 $0.71 $ 43.33 $17.70 $7 79.01 $0.74 T otal Debt % Cha nge Q/Q $ Ch ang e Check-sum $0.3 1.00 $32.37 $761.00 26% $23 15% $160.23 $0.60 $7 79.86 $1.00 $0.97 24 16. net % Sale s Invento ri es % Sales Deferred Costs Advances to rela ted invento ry purcha ses Notes Recie vabl e Valu e Added tax recoverable/refundabl e fed and state tax Deferred Income Taxes O ther current a ssets To tal Curren t Assets Net PP&E O ther non-current assets Restricted Cash .78 $0.5 1.34 26 % $26 15 % $160.00 $0.0% 0.00 $0.0% 0.00 $662.0% 0.0 $ 0.51 $0.80 $2.79 $27.01 $0.00 $0 .76 $0.61 $0.37 $697.0 $0.40 $0.37 $725.2 1.08 $1.08 $1.0 $0.2 1.70 $ 16.96 $0.87 $1 10.00 $631.62 $31.4 9 $0.00 $0.22 $0.46 $788.25 25% $22 $307 $292 $24 $668.52 $19 7.65 $0.52 $9 3.2 $127 0.00 $4 .00 $ 2.46 $676.70 $0.00 $48.1 1.2 1.8 1.83 $0 .6 0 $797.59 $99.0% 68.42 $694.46 $718.60 $87 9.86 $153.33 $ 1.0 Pe rformance Me trics Pro fitability Ratio s Return O n Equity Return o n Avg Equity Return O n Assets Return O n Net Assets Return O n Sales Efficiency Ratios Sales / Total Assets A/R Days Sales O ut Inventory Turns Days o f Inventory L iq uidity Ratios Current Ratio Q uick Ratio Net W orking Capita l ($M) Lo ng-Term Debt / Equity Debt/Capita l T otal Debt / Equity EBITDA/Interest EBITDA.00 $4.28 $42 .86 $15 3.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2.71 $30 1.40 $1 .2 23 1.0% 0.2 $62 0 .00 $4.39 $42 .62 $55.50 $93.00 $18.51 $27.0% 0.00 $49.51 $38.74 LIAB.00 $0 .11 $ 1.4 26.00 $6.39 $0.0% 0.00 $3.0% 4 1.00 $ 0.0% 0.62 $3 9.25 25% $22 $307 $292 $24 $67 7.57 $ 42 .00 $0.97 $13.Cape x/Interest Bo ok & Cash Valu e Book Valu e Per Share Cash Pe r Share Net Ca sh Per Share T angible Book value 22% 3% 4% 39% 345% 1 6% 1 6% 8 0% 248% 22% 25% 84% 102% 12% 17% 63% 63% 9% 13% 58% 55% 9% 13% 58% 7 5% 1 4% 2 1% 6 8% 80% 18% 27% 74% 0.2 22 0.68 $4 2.24 $ 23.83 $4 2.77 $1.46 $27. net G oodwill To tal Assets Fiscal 2010E Q 2E Q 3E Q4E $112.0% 18.01 $0 .49 $0.08 $0.0% 0.80 $2.42 $0.50 52.80 $0.6 102 1.00 $6 .5 22 0.00 $4.67 $27.92 $20.6 0 $694.60 24 16.39 Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Barclays Capital estimates.0% 0.00 $26.78 $22.00 $0.0 7.46 $68 2.62 $ 45.6 101 0 .60 $788.6 5 $0.86 $153.21 $132.82 $69.90 $1.00 $6 9. 2009 .70 $154.00 $0.00 $6.26 $21.00 $0.60 25% $22 $307 $292 $24 $6 63.11 $42 .47 $2 7.8 46.10 $0.5 22 0.80 $2 .46 $6 68.87 $1.42 $0.80 $ 2.7 43.37 $7 08.02 $25.54 25 % $22 $307 $292 $24 $671.42 $0.0 $0.00 $ 4.46 $673.00 33 % $88 15 % $162.00 $0 .04 $ 2.1 $29 0.

0 1.5 71.00 50.58 0.30 0.3 150. 0 2.0% 14.0 50.00 350.5 109% 59. 0 253.95 2.6 252% 236.00 42. 0 1.0 100.2 878% 0.1 163. 0 60.9 1.2% 8.00 0. 00 37.6 0.00 19. 93 -4% 167.6 90.00 52. 2% 9.90 -29% 36.4 238% 8.8% 11.14 1.66 0.0 2. 0% 17.5% 9.0% -34.0 85.0 Fi scal 2010E Total Shipments (MW) Internal P roducti on (MW ) Third Party C el ls (M ) W Tolli ng/Service (MW) ASP s ($/W ) Y/Y (% ) 41. 0% 3.5 150.4% 8.92 418.46 10. 9 15. 0 1.49 65.74 10. 14 1.5 Fiscal 2008 Q1E 270.66 0. 30 14.04 1. 4 46. 0 1.3 43% 162. 66 0. 36 0.6 47.00 311.0 270.58 0.0 112.5% 8.9% 5. 26 72.0 60. 29 50. 0 10.64 -40% 65.27 Sil icon Product R evenues Y/Y (% ) UMG P roduct Revenues Y/Y (% ) Total Revenues Y/Y (% ) 171. 2 3.5 3.0 132.0 295.7 633.42 179.0 67. 0 2.6 20% 153.0% 12.91 2.3 60. 0 15. 01 621. 30 0.10 -6% 47.39 0.5 Fiscal 2009E Q2E 270.4 173% 110.48 0. 5 70% 30% 78% 23% 67% 33% 40% 60% 64% 36% 45% 55% 45% 55% 45% 55% 45% 55% 45% 55% 55% 45% 55% 45% 55% 45% 55% 45% 55% 45% Gross Margi n Internal c ells Third-part y c ells Tolling UMG Total 16.0 204. 0% 27.0 198. 0% 7. 0 23.0 74.30 0.9 129% 51.0 125.0 75.9 69% 238.9 3. 0 1.40 1. 00 47.0 1.02 0.30 0.15 18.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 306: CSIQ Earnings Drivers Fi scal 2008 FYE: D ecem ber Annual I nternal Cell Capacity (MW ) Quarterly I nternal Capacity (MW ) Q1 100.3 15.0 300. 35 0.41 98. 30 0.0% 4. 0 291.5 19.0 2.0% 6. 89 5.0% 13.0% 8.0% 16.1 142% 73.1 175.4 17.58 2.84 2.0 67.0% 18.0 3. 0 100. 45 194. 0 94. 5 Fiscal 2009E Q1E 300. 24 131.2 117.42 2.40 12% 59.0 -43% 692.5% 5.55 5.0 95. 0% 6. 9 66. 0 10.02 1.66 0. 0 93.0% 6. 2 4.0% 9. 66 0.00 25.38 207.42 45.17 11% 19.0% 17. 9 5.2 3.81 201.80 0.1 2.0 15. 2 98.95 1.20 -37% 40.30 1.22 1.0 15.69 0. 0% 6. 8% 9.4% 5.0 10.0 25. 00 325. 0 67.0 2. 8 109% 58.7 -58% Cost of revenues Sil icon Product C osts Y/Y (% ) Silic on C os t/W att Spot Contrac t Proc es sing Cost s Poly to Wafer Cost s Check UMG P roduct Costs Y/Y (% ) UMG C os t/W att Total Cost/W att 142. 40 60.33 740.0 2.00 6. 5% Source: Company R eport s and B arclays Capital Es timates 16. 0% 9.5 43.32 -41% 200. 85 2.0 176. 6 16.66 0.53 0.7% 8.3 -73% 4.6% 14.0 6.8 Q3E 450.64 2.0% 7.0 24.62 -30% 524.0 75.1% 7. 0 122% 158.74 0.0 84.0 10.42 3. 9 127.94 318.2 27% 62.0% 11.4 2.34 0. 1 1. 0% 11.7% 8. 0 45. 2 213% 176.2 17.83 0.6% 2.52 1.54 Sil icon Breakdown Spot Contrac t Sil icon Prices ($/kg) Spot Contrac t Blended Conversion Efficiency (Sili con) Grams/W att (Sili con) 289.73 1.3 -55% 15.0 24.9 1.00 45.0 27.2 112.8% 17.8 142% 350. 0 1. 0 2.23 135.14 3.0 2.44 2. 06 1.66 0.97 57. 0 152. 5% 15.30 0. 0 1.7 2.32 0.0 69. 8 16.2 3. 7% 10. 9% 2.66 0.0% 9.0% 7. 79 0. 66 0.0 1.0 3.6 27% 590. 08 155.6 123% 49.0 113. 5% 11.04 1.9 1.01 0.0% 6. 0 2.30 0. 5% 8.0 15.0% 4.0 15.59 -38% 106. 0% 9.8 143. 6 74.3 -70% 88.5 57.6 -45% 119.6 106% 35.24 20.0% 10.91 3.5 Q4 270.90 2. 85 -30% 141.7% 10.2 60.22 2.0 85.48 2.0% 8.8 15.0 Q3 270.2% 2.13 190.2 878% 212. 0% 12.1 17.0% 15.30 0.0 3. 5 90.5 Q3E 270. 70 0.43 2.0% 6.0 43% 61. 67 0.2 159% 197.0 67. 5 -45% 42.6 14.0% 8.0 112.74 2.0% 5.1 80.5 Q4E 500.5 Q4E 270.8% 5. 0% 13.8 174. 2009 283 .30 0.08 0. 41 0. 2% 4. 52 0.3 154.0 320.0 4.0 3. 5 18.9 142.23 55.43 0.81 Total UMG Shipm ents (MW ) ASP s ($/W ) Y/Y (% ) 0 - 2. 30 0.1 141.0 245.75 -30% 156.57 0.0 15.3 301.66 1.8% -5.0 25.9% Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted May 01.3 -68% 22.0 0. 1% 5. 0% 4.7 100% 829.0% 4.0 275.81 1.2 101% 469.0 40.3% 10.27 0.0 18.71 1.07 0.66 0.0 1.0 18.4 172. 0 67.2% 10.0 1.0 Fiscal 2010E Q2E 375. 2 200. 4 44% 219.0% 16.7% 10. 18 0.4 4.7% 10.7% 11.59 3.0% 13.0 318.0 4.8 -32% 132.0% 15.4 16.0 138.0% 11. 14 17. 39 1. 13 25.52 0.00 4.66 0.72 75. 0 2. 0 -35% 127. 5% 5.0 34.1% 3.0 4.0 67.64 1.00 3.66 0.7 77% 171.0 1. 2 3.5% 9.8 273. 50 -40% 81. 0% 20.0 1.0 1. 3 80.0 0.0 1.78 0. 0 Q2 100.0 185% 56.0% 9.24 115.30 0. 5 144.4 27% 224.8% 10.8 1053% 188. 0% 4. 3% 3.5% 6.0 1.6% 12.03 -30% 121.0 1.0 81.93 1.0 1. 0 2.66 0.52 125.0% 13.7 268% 138. 81 135.8 4.

39 1) -$0 .0 -3 7.3 $ 20. 2009 .0 % 4.0% $14 .5% 3 .0 8. 516 .86 5) 5 .1 64 ) 2 5.2 % ( 155 .45 5) (47 3) (20 .2 80. 580 76 .0 00 ) 8.6 33) ( 1.0 $2 0.24 8) (49 .0 00 .5 % 3.8 27 ) 2 4. 360 ) 3.95 5) (5 .1 66 1 0.0 % 4.3 6 28 . 770 . 1 2.10 1.7% 2 .7 34) (1 1.20 $0 .0 % $ 4.4 35 7 .8% 1 .0 % $2 32 .9 97 4.7 % 2.80 0) 1 00 0 0 0 0 1 1. 0% 5. 5% 5.70 0) (4 .0 06 .0 .91 6) 73 (2 .37 2.2 63 .88 7) (1 0.6 08 1 1.7 8.2 98) 1 5.10 87.0 % 1.6 $ 15.2 % 1.50 0) 9 97 (5 03) $ 0.2 % 0 . 096 .50 0) 7 .8 % $48 .91 0) (1 .87 0 $ 0.8 % $ 20 .0 % 2. 3) $ 11.76 8) (18 .9% ( 17 9.2 92 (3 .4 $ 20 .7 71 .47 9) 2 .48 5) (44 7) (9 .4 % 4.4 55 (1 0.6 % -3 4.6 39 .61 2.8 60.87 4) 7 . 7% 10.1 4 3 5.7 2 37 2.36 9) (6 .23 5 (2 . 0) $2 2.5 -97 .69 1 8 .2 38 ) ( 10.55 2 (3 .00 9.33 1.5 85 24.7 2.0 % $ 1.7 10 6.1 % -4 2.0 % 3.4 05 ( 1.6 26 2.95 8. 485 . 60 $0. 686 40. 208 .78 4) 23 .4 % 27. 759 .1% Q1 17 1.5 % ( $1 0.1 % $ 41.19 3) (1 2.1 70) (2 0.1 % 11.5% 3 . net To tal in ter est exp ense Inte re st in com e Ot he r non.2 00 ) 4 00 0 0 0 0 4 3.0 % 0 .1 % Fisc al 20 09 E $3 0.8 8. 068 4.8% -70 .7 Q4E $9.99 5 $ 0.39 2 Fi sca l 20 08 Q2 21 2. 8% 1 1.25 3 -29 . 0% ($ 43 .02 9) (49 .39 7 4 . 5) $4 .2 35 3 4.0 % ($ 4.6 98 .0 % $2.50 0) 9 .4 00 ) ( 4.56 0) (3 . 195 Fisc al 20 09 E 4 69 . 2% 1.5 90.8 -41 .8 % 6 .3% 2 .1 % 2 0. 5% 7. 6 Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports.1 51.5 80 134 .7 % 15.7 % 2. 449 ) ( 3. 668 (1.4 09 ( 3.78 3.37 0 5 .0% 3 .8 26) (5 2.0 63) 1 2.6 07) (3 9. 084 .2 56) 3 9.8 8. 2 2.0 % 1.0 % -0 .19 1 $ 0. 035 . 409 5.3 29 (4 05 ) ( 9.48 5) 3.5 % 3.3% Fisc al 20 10E $5 8.8 02) 1 4.5 % 3.0% 1 .0 % 8.1 % ($ 22. 807 3.0 00) 28 .0 % $2. 616 .2 % .5% 4 .77 0) 0 (10 . 0% 10 .0 60.68 6 40 .2 % 1.6) $ 8. Barclays Capital estimates 284 May 01.58 0) (2 .52 1.48 2.70 0) (4 . 46 -$ 0.7 30 ) 5.42 9.3 $ 17.4 1 $ 0.0 % 9.5 % 2 33.1 $16 .70 3.1 31 ( 7.6 86 4 0.6 86 4 0.02 9 7 2.58 0 Q1 E 51 . 45 3 5.8 96 .6 5 $ 0.4 05 $0 .48 2) (9 .2 Fis cal 200 8E Q2 Q 3E $ 16 .05 2 10 .2 90 6 .19 4 18 . 280 ) 22.1 % 7.93 7 2 37 (7 41) (5 03) (1 .33 2) 7 .2 % 1.01 3 -7 1. 6% 0.1 4 3 5.8 00 ) (1 9.5 80 Q4 73 . 591 ) (1.8 9.112 .33 . 148 ) (8.6 86 4 0.0 8.7 % -6 4.6% .3 25 11.2 97) (4 5.5 80 Fis cal 20 10E Q2E 19 6.19 9) 21 .0 $1 7. 274 ) (1.0% 2 4.0% ( $15 .42 6) (30 3) (8 .73 9) (2 .5 % 0.5 % 0. 4 1 5. 1% -5 8.79 4 Fisc al 20 10E 8 29.0 % $ 3.3% 1 5.0 % ($ 1.4 % $64 . 189 .12 $0 .38 5 Q3 25 2.9 Fis cal 20 10E Q2E Q3E $14 .0 % $3.26 7) (6 03) (1 3.0% (21 3.2% 26 . 3% (19 4. 500 ) (2.69 4) 4 .3 2.6% (7 40.operat ing i nc ome (ex pe ns e) Lo ss o n ch ang e in fa ir va lue of d er ivative s Lo ss o n fin anc ial ins tru me nts rela ted to con vert ible not Oth er Inc ome ( Exp en ses) EBIT Earni ngs bef ore tax & e xt ra ordi na ry ite ms Income Tax Ex pe ns e Earni ngs a ft er ta x Sha re base d c om pen satio n Non. 0% (20 7.6 31 ) 4 3.0 2.1 6 04 .78 7.9 % -4 4.0 09) $0.70 0) (4 .0 % 13.54 6 $ 0.1 8 $ 0.5 45 (2 .1 06 (3 .0 % $ 2.6 05.8 % 2.$0. 2% 4.680 .8 02 3 5.3) -60 8. 768 (1.1 86 .16 2) 59 (10 .68 6 40 .02 -$0 .3) Q1 E $7 45 . 776 .42 4 0 (1 7.1% 1 5.06 35 .19 1 (1 .0 -95 3.10 3) (3 .2 65.4 2.8 % 15.6 86 4 0.7 71.2 % 1 5.86 7 (3.0% 5 .07 6 (2 .9 05 5.59 0 (1 .63 3. 078 ) 11. 11 35 .1% ( 47 .0 % $58 .5 80 Q4E 22 4.4 $26 . 3% -6 2.27 5) 8 .7 % 268 .0 87) 7.0 % $ 19.19 4) 21. 6% 3.9 2 .0% 3 .3 56 .7 % 1 1.8 80 1 3.08 6 29 .8% (4 18 .5 80 Q3E 21 9. 728 .70 4 73.6 % 15.39 1) (1 .4 % 122 .0 70 $ 0.0 48 $0 . 970 . 7 2.8% 0 .3 96 ) ( 16.69 6) (45 .2 4 $ 0.2 .80 3. 07 . 307 (1.0 % 5.2 66) 3.7 8 $ 0.4% Fi sca l 200 8E $20 .3 % (80 .12 7 10 .1 2 .8 72 ) 2 2.5 00 ) 6. 5% 1.1.14 5. 1% 2 51 .1 97 (1 0.0 % $3 . 0 00) FYE: Dec embe r Rev enue Q oQ YoY Cos t of Sales Gr oss Pr ofit Selling exp en ses Ge ner al a nd ad minis tra tive e xpe nse s Res ear ch a nd de velop me nt expe nse s Tota l ope ra ti ng ex pe ns es Operat ing Income Inte re st expense .7 % (98 .7 54 (2 .7 % 1.3 1 3 4.1 -7 7.0 00) 2 4.17 5) (1 .1 46 .25 0) 1 1.6 10 .7 % 15. 409 ( 17.4% ( 135 .9 % 2.6 % 1.3% $3 0. 4 5 3.8 % 2.6) $62 .7 % ( $3 1.01 1 (4 . 613 ( 3. 0% 11.0 % $ 76 .24 6) (1 2.0 % 1.4 35 (4 .9 54.4 55 $0. 032 .73 5 (1 .0 29 ( 6. 0% 8.7 % 0.1 1 5.58 0 Fi sca l 20 09 E Q 2E 88 .5 32 (1 5.29 0) (6 . 774 ) (4. 998 ) 7 5. 546 .1 2 3 5.4 60 (1 2.4 % $8 .3 62 18.0 70 (3 .3 % 8 79.0% 6 .50 5) (5 .6 % 3 85 .83 1) (5 .7 38. 2 2.1) $ 70 .0 % 5. 0% 1 1.36 2.5 % 2.89 7 (1 .68 6 40 .33 6) 23 .62 0) -$1 .6 8 .307 . 500 ) 4.62 7.0 % 1. 5% 0.4 % 3.77 4) (3 .59 3.009 .0 % $3.1 66 (4 .1 25 (2 .4% 7.59 1) (50 .151 . 0% $ 1.6 33.0 48 2.2% (16 3.5% 7 .18 8.0% 25.1 54.4 98 (3 .52 2 9 .0 % $ 3.6 86 4 0.23 3) (25 . 200 ) 10 0 0 0 0 0 ( 20 4) (4.0 % ($6 .0 % 5.22 0) (1 . 8% -4 8.894 .5 % $59 . 0% 7. 690 ( 9.3 % 15.3 ) $66 .26 2) 8 .Solar Energy Handbook Figure 307: CSIQ Income Statement ($ .5 % 0.62 0) (1 .50 0) 6 . 563 .0 2 -$ 0.99 2) (66 5) (6 .03 1 (7 .13 35.2 63 (1 0.GAAP Net Income GAAP Ne t Income Non -G AAP EPS GAAP EPS (fu lly dilu ted) We igh ted Avera ge Ou tstan din g Sha re s ('0 00) Fully D lu ted Sha res ('00 0) i Perce nt of Sale s Gr oss Mar gin R&D Selling exp en ses G&A Op era ting inco me Net Inco me Tax Ra te 1 6. (PF EBITDA + N I -Ca pe x) Q1 $ 31.29 2 (3 .66 1) (1 .1 ) Q1E $18 .39 -$1 .5% 10 .5 80 Fi sca l 2 008 7 09.3 % .3 $ 17.0 % $ 3.93 7 (4 .80 8 1 5.0 % $8.9 % -6 9. 068 (4.3 $ 15.20 0) 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 .6 04) (1 0.3 2.0 % $ 4.0 66) 2 3.42 35 . 658 FYE: Dec embe r Pro Forma EBI TDA % Change Y/Y % Change Q/ Q % Sa les LTM EBITDA Capit al Spendi ng % of Sa les Depreci ati on % of COGS FCF O ps Est .5 % 14 2.4 55 1 8.50 0) (89 1) (2 .16 3) 17 .8 35) 1 1.17 4 28 . 480 .44 5) (50 . 3% 1.41 9 1 . 3 90 .0 % ($6 7.4 % -2 371 .$0. 304 ) 31 (4.0 190 .0 48 ( 6.3 52) 2 5. 274 ) .6 1 27 .131 .10 3.6 % 2.1 02) 9.80 0) 1 00 0 0 0 0 4 .4 % 8 .36 3) (49 . 3% . 000 ) ( 17.03 1 0 (10 . 100 ) (4.0 % -1 2.5 % 15.80 0) 1 00 0 0 0 0 1 5.97 0) (1 0.0% $ 12 .08 9) (30 2) (2 .7% 25.87 0 (1 .5 80 .8 Fi sca l 20 09 E Q 2E Q3 E $3. 307 $0 .58 0 Q3 E 153 .4% -8 .2 Q 4E ($4 7.68 6 35 .44 2 (1 .0 % 5.8 29 (1 8.85 2) (6 .39 1 32 . 3% 43.2% (6 33.0 % $ 3.80 0) 1 00 0 0 0 0 1 2.6% 2 25.7% 2 .6 ) Q4 E $1 4.1% (17 4. 400 ) 400 0 0 0 0 22.9 64.8 29 2 5.99 5 (2 . 500 ) 10 0 0 0 0 0 9.0 % 1 2.0 09) ( 9. 1% ( 14 3.14 4) (2 . 686 40.3 34 ) 1 7.5 00 ) 100 0 0 0 0 11.4 55 ( 6. 197 ) 8 9.4 35 ) ( 29.1 8.4 % -5 6.3 79) 1 5. 972 ) ( 20 4) (4.45 5. 7% 1 8.17 $0 .10 4) 51.0% $1 1. 4% 7. 2% 1. 025 ) (2. 535 7.4% 6 2.03 6) 18 . 7 2. 4 10.6% 0.5 % -39 .8 90 ) ( 8.2 83 .3 % -2 . 799 ) 9.58 0 Q4 E 176 .9 2 .4 % 0.6 $1 3. 580 Q1E 18 8.37 9) 8 19 (9 .2 % 1 1. 061 ) (4.23 4) 20 .0 % $9 49.05 35.0.18 7.17 5 26 . 563 ) ( 38 4) (3. 535 ( 4.5 % 3.9% -1 9.17 0) (60 0) 12 .8 % 2.89 7 $ 0.1 6 $ 0.5 74) 1 8.2 % 15.5 % 3. 0% 11.2 90 (4 .00 1 (2 .6 % $ 59 . 7% 1 59 .53 8) 1 4.17 4 0 0 8 .2 0 3 5.4 97 .0 8.6 86 3 5.3 20 (2 .8 308 .7 1 3.43 1) 2 .3 04 ) ( 1.0 1 3 5.3 54) 4 .3% 2.2.5 2.08 35 .0 2.3 61 ) 2.8 % 7.54 6 (2 .1 35 ( 1.0 % $2 .0% ( $7 .4 66 (2 .01 1 (2 .5 09) 33 .4 45 ) (2 4.8 8. 9% 9.24 6) 10 2 8 .4 % 25.3 % 3.4 % -33 4.7 % 10.10 0) (4 .8 70.5 36 ) ( 5.0% 4. 400 ) (4.70 0) (4 .

115) 16.5% 2. 855 $43. 7 $25.998 $58. 15) ($4.217 $12.09 ($0. 06 $8.22 ($2. 935 66% $90. net % Sales Inventories % S al es Advances to relat ed party suppliers Ot her current asset s Total Current Assets Net PP& E Intangible assets.0% 30.000. 501 40% $24.793 $220.164 $20.727 $13.054 $119.6% 36.138 $19. 31) $8. 470 $263 $6.622 $107.654 $33. 460 $0 $324. 022 0.995 ====== $40. 784 47% $26. 70 $8.1 -0. 565 $56.7 1. 654 $33. 3 1.747 $56. 2% 32.905 -----------$569. 874 $195. 000. 2 -0.678 69% $92.283 $26.730 40% $24.7 0.0 $99. 9 0. 957 $156.793 $225.69 ($2. 677 $621. 957 ====== -$82.121 70% $61. 4% 48.551 $282.030 34% $3.56 $2.26) $8. 850 40% $24. 022 0.61) $8.462 $0 $341. 905 -----------$541.095 $212 $6. 877 $563.09 $8.609 $230 $7.571 $1.5 -0. 0 $99.416 $0 $333.41) ($4.571 $1.636 $191. 905 -----------$519. 62 55 8.654 $33.848 $64.85) $8. 793 $203.47) ($5. 595 60% $87. 557 $244.022 0.799 40% $24.955 17.874 $183. 549 $20. 654 $33. 622 $113. 550 $21.01 $0. 164 $20. 874 $149. 4% 50. 580 $221.205 $263 $6.858 $74. 4 $73.905 -----------$493.998 $58. 571 $1.995 $156.6 $193. 198 60% $78.844 $271.319 $94.526 -----------$484. 06 $1.654 $33. 548 16.6 $10. 0 1.45 55 8. 858 $76. 6 1.959 $56.701 $56. 357 16.723 40% $24.5 $176.87) ($4.998 $58.571 34% $3. 190 $153.9 41 1. 1 1.551 $238.718 $156.9% 14.9% 30. 165 $13.212 15.71 $3. 179 -----------$367. 0% $0 $95.551 $268.000. 52 ($2. 369 $257. Barclays Capital estimates May 01. 000.0% 47. 0% 3.8 0. 164 $20. 551 $225. 9 -1. 8% 31. 4 43 0.76 73 9.164 $20.423 $62.139 $263 $6.622 $50.117 61% $101. 7 $258.184 $588.793 $338. 8 0. 419 ====== -$99.509 $20. 3% 32. 8% 33.105 $231. 858 $17.905 -----------$507.718 ====== Fi scal 2008E Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1E Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E Q4E Q1E F iscal 2010E Q2E Q3E Q4E Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports.2 0.000.66 55 9.793 $216. 164 $20. 5 ($4.283 $26.0% $0 $95. 246 ====== $108.39 55 8. 674 $20.71 $9.24 64 8. 814 $10. 8 $170.398 70% $80. 774 $20. 173 19. 799 $156.654 $33.152 $170.502 $60. 5 0.608 $10. 283 $26.393 $140.094 $4. 12) $4.589 $602. 76 60 8.571 $1.226 60% $75. 0 $32.551 $260.780 $614.01 $8.683 127% $24. 283 $26.571 $1. 6% 3.515 ====== -$35. 195 $1. 161 34% $3.957 41% $3.616 $56. 022 -18. 258 $0 $331.622 $118.707 $263 $6.50 55 8.331 $0 $328.0% $0 $95.145 $0 $152.1 40 1.022 0.71) $8. 3% 52.7% 44. 086 8% $9.4% 5. 551 $272. 9 1.283 $26.3 86 0.998 $58. 8% $49.9 0. 7 42 1.3% 3. 721 $299.243 ====== -$59. 3% 47. 373 34% $3.284 $165.212 40% $24. 012 $215.314 $5.3 0.085 60% $70.571 $1. 0 $99.022 0.283 $26. 622 $61. 851 $20.622 $106.914 $28.69 $8. 280 $0 $346.2 $63. 944 -14. 992 16.5 8. 091 $165. 8 0.2% 47.9 41 1.7 -2.0 $92.1% 32. 793 $221. 502 $0.2 -0.628 $196.187 $20.858 $66.68 1. 1% 108. 234 $263 $6.159 34% $3. 99) $8.Capex/Interest Book & Cash Value Book Value P er S hare Cash P er S hare Net Cash P er Share Tangibl e Book value $4.134 $28.31) $8. 246 $141.32 $3. 9% 46. 0% 45. 33) $8. 547 $635.000.7 $17.164 $20.721 $263 $6.674 $0 $352.963 80% $35.700 $220.134 16. 7% 0.654 $33. & S HRHLDRS' EQUITY S-Term Debt Account s payabl e % Sales Advances from suppl iers and customers Income tax payable Other current liabilit ies Total Current Liabil ities: L-Term Debt Ot her non-current liabiliti es Total Li abi li ti es Minorit y int erest Shareh olders' E quity Total Li abil ities & Sharehol ders' Equi ty Total Debt % Change Q/Q $ Change Check-sum Performance Metrics Profi tabil ity Ratio s Return On Equity Return on Avg Equity Return On Assets Return On Net Asset s Return On Sales Efficiency Rati os Sales / Total A ssets A/ R Days Sales Out Invent ory Turns Days of Inventory Li quidi ty Rati os Current Ratio Quick Ratio Net Working Capital ($M) Long-Term Debt / Equity Debt /Capit al Total Debt / Equi ty EBITDA/ Interest EBITDA. 51 63 4.440 43% $19.3 -2.0 $99. 745 $56. 690 $49. 254 -----------$680. 32) $10. 54 ($1. 022 0.68 ($2.0 $99.793 $216.622 $131.399 34. 2009 285 . 0 1.6 1.998 $58.972 $263 $6.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 308: CSIQ Balance Sheet BALANCE SHE ET Q1 Assets Curren t Assets: Cash and cash Equivalents Restrict ed Cash Account s receivable.874 $198.7 0. 7 0. 504 120% $20. 0 $99.86 64 7.48 55 8.622 $70.115 34% $3. 70 $0. 541 $569.742 24. 622 $134.026 $20. 0 $127.874 $191. 0% $0 $95. 2% 7.686 $19.654 $33.012 17.905 -----------$540.164 $20. net Deferred tax asset s Ot her asset s Total Assets LI AB.0% $0 $95.7 921. 874 $207. 661 $20.9% 32. 858 $64. 863 $133 $4. 654 $33.56 $10. 99 ($4. 215 $110. 000. 455 $0.9 0. 701 $176.164 $20.798 $0.283 $26.675 $232.571 $1. 0% 0.998 $58.267 $552.776 60% $89.285 6% $11. 337 ====== -$16. 8% 3.636 ====== $115.823 $363. 3 39 50% 16% 21% 23% 11% 17% 18% 9% 10% 5% 12% 15% 7% 8% 4% -61% (3%) -36% -45% (69% ) -5% (10% ) -4% -4% (8%) -3% (14% ) -2% -2% (3%) 4% (17%) 3% 3% 2% 6% 1% 4% 4% 3% 10% 4% 6% 6% 4% 6% 6% 4% 3% 2% 7% 7% 4% 4% 3% -1% 5% 0% 0% (0% ) $70.4 1. 484 40% $24. 4% $32. 337 $156.3 1.4% -$23. 46) ($6. 543 $56.979 34% $3.551 $275.9 1. 611 17.734 $0 $380.044 $636.3% 1.000. 928 $17.631 40% $44.139 $367.0% $0 $95.004 $156.02) ($5.858 $29.874 $206. 3 39 0. 1 51 1. 3% 45.99 ($2.982 $137.104 62.164 $20.13) $9.177 $20.9 41 1. 8 0. 571 $1. 664 $484. 212 $48.022 0.902 $680.284 ====== $65.0 $99. 999 16.32 $8.623 $169. 42 ($1.283 $26.012 $56.446 $5.7% 44. 211 $20.0 $99. 157 $56.561 $55.0 $99.1% 647.3 0.571 $1.0% $0 $95. 905 -----------$457. 884 $263 $6.283 $26.243 $156.482 40% $24. 22 $8.998 $58.9 $47.022 0.905 -----------$468.874 $161. 4% 31. 582 $0 $251. 2% 31. 426 34% $3.87) $8.9 -1. 542 $263 $6. 0% $0 $95. 551 $284.25 ($1.234 $19. 54 $8. 06 ($2. 863 $92. 474 10% $7. 42 $8.858 $30.727 $0 $327. 781 $280.874 $161.8 41 1.858 $52. 998 $58.858 $60. 22 ($0.1% 56.5% -$35.793 $230. 419 $156. 793 $222. 872 $0 $352.377 $0.905 -----------$526. 275 $479. 9 0.45 110 9.004 ====== -$46.0 46 1.8 $28. 998 $58.551 $238. 799 ====== $61.515 $156.

0 17.01 0.6 0.0 60.6 9.0 16.91 -17% N/A $ 2.0 12.8 -55.30 63.2 219.9% 7.5% 0.0 9.60 0.9 12.0 Fiscal 2009E Q1E 500.9 0.29 304.0 16.0 245.0 134.79 0.54 0.0 43.52 0.0 70.73 0.5 Fiscal 2010E Revenues Product Revenue Toll ing Revenues Other Revenue COGS P roduct COGS Tolling COGS Additional Costs Gross Profit Gross Margin (%) M odule Gross Margins Tolling Gross Margins Total Shipments (MW) Internal M odules (MW) Tolling Modules (MW) 171.0 25.00 3.4% 20.0 163.0% 41.7 9.0 195.25 $ $ $ $ $ 60% 40% 2.0 47.0 7.5 Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E 360.0 50.80 0.0 28.0% 95.9 0.3 124.6% 8.0 75.0% 20.17 0.3 75.4% 54.80 0.2 167.5% 0.0 125.0% 70.0 25.8 0.7 12.6 82.39 0.0 142.83 2.36 $ 2.0 135.0 197.0 150.0 16.72 $ 1.5 330.80 0.5 254.9 111.1 172.7% 20.7 0.8 661.0% 135.48 $ 0.7 134.0 -2.66 0.30 73.0 25.0 0.0 153.9 145.8% 172.70 0.80 0.0 Q4E 400.0 100.0 100.48 $ 0.0 90.0 125.3 -33.2% 27.0% 20.6 47.0 60.77 -30% -27% -27% -27% -28% -14% -6% -5% -5% $ 0.30 120.6 0.49 $ 2.0 0.0 16.3% 20.0 16.8 41.9 0.0 4.80 0.1 7.0 0.0 0.0 164.3 12.0 84.6 0.0 16.9 7.9 134.8 179.0 240.8 8.80 3.6% 8.0 250.9 134.0 Q4 360.3 9.4 23.34 0.4 7.80 0.49 0.8 12.0 507.0 68.8% 20.48 $ 0.8 289.0 16.0 12.6% 6.0 42.54 2.5 149.0 0.0 16.94 $ $ $ $ $ 78% 23% 3.85 0.0 164.0 150.6% 9.2 151.00 $ $ $ $ $ 70% 30% 1.3 5.4 9.1 43.7 152.9 6.46 -32% -40% -42% -33% -37% -18% -10% -5% -5% $ 0.0 187.6 0.80 0.48 $ 0.9% 4.63 $ 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.19 0.0% 43.0 270.4 0.4 9.0 23.20 0.24 0.0 74% 70% 30% $ 1.0 14.48 $ 0.24 $ 2.0 146.81 $ 1.0 110.62 $ 3.0% 40.5 85.0 720.0% 125.8 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 240.0 177.0 90.0 125.0 56% 60% 40% $ 2.38 0.0 161.30 53.5% 0. 2009 .0 40.0 60.6% 8.6 5.49 0.0 7.0 13.30 248.0 100.2 298.0 0.6 7.0 9.0 180.5% 7.6% 8.0 90.8 141. Barclays Capital estimates 286 May 01.7% 22.0 25.30 86.40 $ $ $ $ $ 60% 40% 2.6 145.3 118.6% 6.48 $ 0.0 -2.8 270.3 146.0 27.0 115.0 253.6 0.0 112.4% 5.6% 9.04 -3% $ 3.95 2.0 160.6% 9.5 400.0 0.0 0.5 Q4E 500.0% 47.6 0.8 195.0 60.0 116.0 45.14 0.28 0.4 8.0 143.37 $ 3.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 309: SOLF Earnings Drivers FYE: December Annual Capacity (MW) Quarterly Capacity (MW) Available Capacity (MW) Q1 240.0 25.3 0.0 18.0 70.35 $ $ $ $ $ 60% 40% 2.68 0.9 172.97 1.0 90.1 12.81 0.6 0.49 0.4 360.54 0.6 0.4% 20.80 0.0 245.6 160.6% 9.6% 8.0 14.0 90.9 66.15 70% 30% 1.93 $ 1.0 80.0 60.48 0.0 0.76 0.0 16.0 112.0 80.0 123.0 106.7 0.07 $ 4.6% -4.0 4.5 Fiscal 2008 Q1E 360.0 16.0 184.48 $ 1.9 82.6 107.2 3.7 643.0 210.94 $ $ $ $ $ 40% 60% 64% 36% $ $ $ $ $ 60% 40% 2.48 N/A N/A N/A All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports.8 12.1% 7.0 40.0 110.0 0.0 70.0 25.5% 0.22 0.0 11.58 0.0 58.40 275.0 65.4 152.0 30.0 106.8 168.0 60.80 0.0 175.4% 3.34 $ $ $ $ $ 470.3 40.94 286.0 370.6% 8.65 S ilicon Breakdown S pot Contr act Costs ($/W) $ S pot $ Contr act $ W afer to modul e process ing Co $ P oly to wafer processi ng costs Check $ S ilicon P rices ($/kg) S pot Contr act Conversion Efficiency Grams/Watt ASP ($/Watt) P V M odules y/y (%) q/q (%) Tolli ng $ 70% 30% 3.4% 22.30 186.1 0.48 $ 0.00 $ $ $ $ $ 70% 30% 1.60 0.35 316.30 153.83 0.3 500.0 70.9 142.30 138.5% 16.3 Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E 500.6% 8.0 100.0% 30.08 0.0 0.0% 85.6 9.1 179.0 125.48 $ 0.0 697.73 0.9 79.80 0.0% 85.6 0.0 5.0 16.0 100.0 125.0 90.6% 8.6 330.59 0.0 13.00 $ $ $ $ $ 70% 30% 1.0 479.94 $ $ $ $ $ 67% 33% 3.0 170.0 16.0% 115.9 12.9 0.0 25.17 2% $ 4.0 191.2 16.8% 20.76 $ 2.

4) Q4E $134.0 $42.1% -3.0% -4.86 $53.2% 0.9% -12.8% 216.3 $15.86 $53.5) ($6.0% ($3.2% $123.5) $15.5) ($5.06 $0.11) $51.0 Q2 $197.0 $10.7 252.03) ($0.0 ($15.9) Q 3E $141.86 $53.8 48% 20.40) 53.5% 7.5% -3.5 2.7 ($4.5 ($5.10) $53.86 259.3 $11.5) $0.0 ($4.0% ($4.0) ($0.0 $10.7 252.9) ($5.4% 0.0 $39.2) ($5.4) ($21.5) Fiscal 2009E Q2E $111.0 $0.0) $51.0% -33.6% 10.0 $6.0% $2.0% ($3.6% 6.9) ($0.0% ($3.0 $6.0 $1.0 $11.4 FYE: Decemb er Pro Forma EBITDA % Change Y/Y % Change Q/Q % Sales LT M EBIT DA Capital Spend ing % of Sales Depreciation % of COGS FCF Ops Est.9 $28.40 241.9% 2.3% 0.1 5.2% -5.02) ($0.08) ($0.5) $2.0% -37.9 ($4.86 $53.4 $0.7 ($8.1 $7.02) ($0.5 23.7 $40.4 $4.6) -83.7 2.0 ($4. Op erating Exp enses Op erating In come Non oper ating (income) exp en se: Interest income (expense) Other i ncom e (expense) Exchange gain (loss) Non oper ating (income) exp en se Income (loss) before taxes Income T ax Expense (Benefit) M ino rity Interest Net Income (loss) Net income available to ordinary sh areholders Basi c incom e (loss) per share (i) Diluted incom e (loss) per share from Operations EPS (ADS) EPS F ully Dilluted (ADS) ADSs used i n Computation .4 $0.9) ($0.0% -17.7% 51.71) ($0.1 5.4 -426.1% 3.4% 8.11) $53.5 $20.5% -2.3% 15.3 287.4 48.27 $57.0 $4.4% -6.8) ($0.9% 29.9 5.2% 12.0 $1.0 $12.0 ($64.0 $9.9 53.9% 0.7 ($6.4 $54.8 $0.2% $135.0 $0.5% -109.8 $7.11) ($0.3% -1.0 $10.0 $5.2% 42.0) $0.0% ($26.2% 0.86 259.3% 15.5% 0.8 $1.0% 7.0% $2.0 ($55.5 $10.1) ($41.5) Fiscal 2009E ($6.6% 6.0 $6.8) ($4.0) $0.6% 5.3% 107346.9% 12.15) ($0.24) ($1.0% ($71.5% 6.09) $53.3% 1.Fully Diluted (M) Percent of Sales Gross Margin Increm ental Gross M argin R&D SG&A Operating Incom e Net Incom e T ax Rate 16.32 48.5 $9.4 21.8% 19.5% -6.7 48.0 $13.1 5.7% $220.7 2.4) $0.9) ($1.5 ($1.2 2.5) ($32.2 5.1 Q4E $191.4) Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 $17.7 252.3% 224.32 $0.9 ($2.0 19.0 $1.2) ($165.3 2.8) -83.86 $53.0 1.1 ($8.9) ($6.2% 2.70 $60.Diluted Wei ghted average shares used Avg Shares .13) ($0.2) ($41.13) ($0.0 $0.4% -65.86 $53.4% 12.8% 15.73) 50.1 248.1 ($6.6 5.1) ($4.5) $6.7% -147.6% 268.4 $1.9) $0.8 2.0 $14.8% ($54.6 ($3.9 Q1E $146.3% 12.6) ($0.9% -11.6) 3651.8 2.9% -100.8% $170.7% ($6.4 $9.7) $0.3 $33.9) ($0.0% 13. Barclays Capital estimates May 01.4 13.5% 15.4% 8.4% 0.3% 0.3 $0.0 ($6.2% 29.2) ($2.6 55.9 $6.0) $0.5% -11.8 $9.14) ($1.5) ($0.7 252.13) ($0.0 ($6.0 $713.5% -32.2 $14. 2009 287 .9 259.1) -538.6% 5.5 ($3.0 ($5.2) ($0.13) $53.3 $34.1% $14.5) Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports.7) ($0.7 ($4.9% -3.0 $41.0 $45.4% 8.5% -1.7 ($30.7 $6.02) ($0.0 $10.3% -3.0 $6.9 35.4) ($61.03) ($0.0 ($6.0 $8.9) $0.9) ($1.5 303.4) $4.4 2.0% 13.0% ($7.9 18.6 $1.6 ($3.7% -4.8% 9.5 $10.7 ($6.1% -39.1) ($3.8 235.4) ($1.0% ($14.0) $0.0) $0.0 ($2.7% -4.0% ($20.2) Q1E $3.2% 15.0 $49.0% $3.5 $13.6) ($13.8 26.1% ($30.0% -18.7 ($8.4% $161.9 $1.7 5.0% 0.5 $0.5% 8.05 $0.0 $4.6 Fiscal 2008 $720.2) ($0.8 -138.0 $0.1 $2.5) $0.1 $17.0) $0.10) ($0.1% 77.9 9.6% -3.5 ($7.0 $13.86 $53.7 ($6.8% 0.60) 53.9 -49.8) $0.5% 0.993) ($7.5) ($0.4 242.6) Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q 3E $5.8) $0.5 $2.7% -2.5 ($25.6% 3.2% -2.9% 7.03) ($0.4) $2.5) $31.6% $17.03) ($0.13) ($0.6% $181.3 $9.3% -7.0% $1.7 252.0 ($2.20 $48.02) ($0.4 252.4) Q4E $5.6% 2.0 $10.8 $2.6 ($0.0 ($5.10) $53.3% 1.13) ($0.6) $0.0 $0.5 $9.0 ($61.6 $0.0 $12.0% $9.3 5.6% 5.04 $0.7) Q4E $3.4% 367.02) ($0.7 $170.3 -399.3% -23.1 Q3 $187.1% $60.Basic ADSs used i n Computation .7 252.9% -13.8% 12.17) ($0.0% $3.0) $4.3% $142.1 $27.14) $53.2) $1.2% 0.8% -16.02) ($0.7 252.8% -2.5 $23.1 $8.4% 0.7% 12.2) $3.6% 0.5% 8.0% ($5.02) ($0.0) $0.0% 0.1 $18.4% 7.6) ($0.0 ($6.5% 6.4% 4.1 $0.09) ($0.0 ($0.0 $0.6) ($1.0% $2.24 $0.7% 0.0 ($5.0% Fiscal 2008E ($23.0% ($18.8 ($0.0% ($3.09) ($0.0 $12.4% Q1E ($9.5% 4.9 Q 3E $184.60) ($0.2 ($37.86 252.9% 15.5 ($11.6) $8.8% 2.9) ($4.5% $132.0) ($1.5% 0.1% -37.5) ($0.2) ($64.0 $30.7% 6.25) $53.7 $9.0% 12.5% 5.1) $0.02) ($0.7% -3.1 $25.05) ($0.0 $0.4% 7.9) $643.9 257.1) ($0.2 $0.8 $10.02) ($0.1) $0.10) ($0.4% $177.1 ($15.0 2.5 ($5.6 271.7 -5.6% 0.8) $11.1% 0.05) ($0.1 $1.4) Q1E $82.9% 2.8 2.5 119% Fiscal 2009E $471.24) ($0.7 ($13.6 -105.0% $14.7 2.8% 86.1) $7.5) $0.7 ($8.5% 11.0) $0.8 4.8) ($6.7 252.0) Fiscal 2010E $19.1% $46.08) ($0.6) $446.09) $53.86 256.0 $0.6 -12.0 $0.3 $6.0% $2.5% 6.86 259.1 $1.6 5.4% 0.0% $3.9) $0.1) $1.5 $10.7 252.5% ($72.1% -1.2% -100.0% $7.6 $8.0 $0.13) $53.0% 7.7% -24.4 -2595.7 Q1 $171.73 258.86 $53.1% 15.2) ($0.0 ($32.1 ($30. (PF EBITDA + NI -Capex) Q1 $20.4% 0.5) $4.3% 41.86 258.6 ($38.8 5.6% 0.02) ($0.40) ($0.25) ($0.8 Fiscal 2010E Q2E $175.2 $13.9 2.0 8.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 310: SOLF Income Statement Fiscal 2008 FYE: Decemb er Revenue QoQ YoY Cost of Goods Gross Profit R&D Selling.1 ($5.1) Q4 ($61.8) Q4 $164.1) $7.1 $9.5 $16.3 ($21.0% 2.6 $3.3% 12.1) ($4.0 18.0% 7.6% $7. General & Adm in.02) ($0.2% -186.06 $0.0 ($13.5) -72.86 259.2% 56.2% ($15.8% $3.8) $0.6% -51.4% 0.9% 12.4) ($0.2) ($0.8% -3.6% 6.9) ($23.9) ($0.86 259.8% 0.6% 4.9 53.2% $105.6% -3.5) $0.0 $0.4% -6.4 $11.5 $129.2 ($0.5) ($1.8% $19.0 $21.03) ($0.7 252.86 254.3% 594.0% ($100.4% 8.0% -43.4% 5.4) ($0.5% 8.0% -3.6 5.8% 151.86 $53.0 ($4.6% -188.5) $12.2% 15.0 $11.8 -4.0 242.9 $37.0) Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q 3E ($1.6) $5.0 ($6.0 $8.0 $8.0 ($3.5% 5.0 ($21.3 -35% Fiscal 2010E $697.2) $0.1% 8.0% 15.5% $84.0 $11.5% $3.

9% 59.4 $162 68.6 56 (79%) (12%) (33%) (35%) (37%) 0.----$701 ====== $222 $15 10% $1 $29 $6 $273 $198 $4 $475 $1 $0 ------.---------.7 0. 2009 .4% 66.8 0% $0.97 51 5.3% 93.0 $48.58) $1.-------.27 ($1.4 3.4% 119.80 37 5.9 1.28 ($0.12 $1.-----------$705 $750 $810 ====== ====== ====== $143 $27 16% $13 $20 $3 $206 $198 $1 $406 $16 $0 $160 $25 13% $11 $21 $2 $219 $202 $1 $422 $26 $0 $147 $26 14% $5 $51 $2 $230 $201 $4 $436 $2 $0 $60 $13 $47 28% $107 65.9% 59.0 $24 $5 $47 35% $88 65% $199 $0 $51 $414 $233 $31 $27 -----------$705 ====== $222 $13 10% $1 $29 $6 $272 $198 $4 $474 $1 $0 -----------$278 -----------$753 ====== $419.90) $1.87 26 8.2 0.8% -4.-------$668 $664 ====== ====== $172 $8 10% $1 $29 $6 $217 $198 $4 $419 $1 $0 $172 $11 10% $1 $29 $6 $220 $198 $4 $422 $1 $0 $20 $5 $57 40% $92 65% $199 $0 $51 $423 $229 $31 $27 -----------$710 ====== $222 $14 10% $1 $29 $6 $273 $198 $4 $475 $1 $0 -----------$283 -----------$758 ====== $419.5% 124.25 ($0.-.23 $1.8 0% $0.7% 54.08 $0.10 $1.0 ---.5% -6.18 $1.86 Cash Per Share $1.2% 56.8 0% $0.5 1.10 $0.23 $1.1% 60.5% -0.0 $48.29) $1.8% 66.3 2.75 Net Cash Per Share ($5.2 1.-------$297 $290 -----------.04 $1.6 0.8 63 (10%) (31%) (4%) (4%) (5%) 0.3% -0.5 0.-$262 $257 ---.5% 119.6 0.0 $49 $31 $5 $5 $64 $67 35% 35% $120 $125 65% 65% $199 $199 $0 $0 $51 $51 $488 $477 $248 $254 $31 $31 $27 $27 ---.-------$716 $712 ====== ====== $369.9 25.12 $0.0% 54.5 $236 63.0 $4 $5 $51 35% $96 65% $199 $0 $51 $406 $237 $31 $27 ------.0% 66.6% 120.---------.0 $48.02 288 May 01.06 $0.---.4 1.4 0.9 1.67 41 5.23) $1.5 $172 66.18 $0.0% -0.8 0% $0.3 69 15% 15% 6% 7% 6% 1.9 0.8 0% $0.5% 0.05 $1.5 Book & Cash Value B ook V alue Per Share $5.02 ($1.0 $348.9 $323 66.08 ($1.5% 198.-.6% -0.Capex/Interest 1.0 $48.15 $1.----$273 ------.5 0.4% 60.06 $1.5 0.5% 2.6) $0.2 -4% ($13.97 32 5.0 $122 73.4 $0.---.50 41 6.24 ($1. net % Sales Inventories % S ales Advance to Supplier s Deferred Expens es Other current assets Total Current Assets Net Fixed Assets Intangible assets .8 6% $21.1 1.-.-----------$705 $750 $810 ====== ====== ====== $341.05 30 5.98) $1.3 1.8 63 (7%) (12%) (3%) (3%) (4%) 0.0 $361.2% $199 $0 $51 $477 $219 $31 $27 -----------$753 ====== $172 $32 19% $1 $29 $6 $241 $198 $4 $442 $1 $0 -----------$311 -----------$753 ====== $369.23 $0.94) $1.9 1.6% 153.7% 148.0 $68 $5 $61 35% $114 65% $199 $0 $51 $498 $243 $31 $27 -----------$799 ====== $322 $18 10% $1 $29 $6 $376 $198 $4 $578 $1 $0 -----------$268 -----------$847 ====== $519.30) Tangible Book value $5.4 154% $207.0 $0.02 ($1.5% 0.0 Total Debt % Change Q/Q $ Change Check-sum P erf ormance Metrics P rofitability Ratios Return On Equity Return on Avg Equity Return On Assets Return On Net A ssets Return On Sales E fficiency Ratios S ales / Total Assets A /R Day s S ales Out Inventory Turns Days of Inventory 22% 13% 9% 10% 9% 0.5 0.76 32 5.05 $0.8 0.8 0.45) $1.1% 16.0 5.7 64 (8%) (8%) (3%) (3%) (3%) 0.17 ($1.79) $1.2 $151 69.0 $48.2 $142 71.8 6% $20.0 $369.6 65 (7%) (9%) (3%) (3%) (3%) 0.12 ( $1.19 ($1.56) $1.23 $0.4 0.7 64 (9%) (8%) (3%) (3%) (3%) 0.64) $1.0 $43 $4 $5 $5 $37 $50 45% 45% $54 $73 65% 65% $199 $199 $0 $0 $51 $51 $389 $382 $221 $225 $31 $31 $27 $27 -----------.8 14% $50.-----------.86) $1.1 $334 70.9 1.-------.0 6.02 $0.93 32 5.7 0.10 ($1.-----------$283 $302 $372 ---------.0% $160 $176 $200 $0 $0 $0 $29 $46 $23 $540 $541 $541 $122 $165 $191 $13 $14 $25 $29 $29 $53 ---------.8 0% $0.1% 127.0 $48.0 $48.-----------.7 64 (7%) 9% (3%) (4%) (3%) 0.3 1.6% 55.9 1.9% -0.6 $0.84 32 5.8 1. & S HRHLDRS' EQUITY S -Term Debt Trade acc ounts pay able % S ales Advance payments from customers Accrued expenses and other payables Amount due to related parties Total Current Liabilities: L-Term Debt Deferred tax liability and Other non-current liabilities Total Liabilities Minority Interests Redeemable convertible preferred shares Shareholders' Equity Total Liabilities & Shareholders' Equity Q1 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Fiscal 2009 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Fiscal 2010 Q2 Q3 Q4 $85 $81 $75 $68 $71 $58 $96 $64 $51 56% 33% 27% $108 $120 $111 63.9 $99 77.1% 48.7 1.9 $310 54.2 44 ( 18%) ( 23%) (8%) (9%) ( 16%) 0.3 6.08 $1.3% 60.8 24% $100.15 $0.6 0.0 $519.3 58 (10%) (30%) (4%) (4%) (6%) 0.2% -0.0 -----------.9% 54.----$749 ====== $419.0% 193.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 311: SOLF Balance Sheet FYE: December Assets Current Assets: Cash and cash equivalents Restricted Cas h Accounts receivable.93 25 6.-----------.---------.04 $0.7 64 Liquidity Ratios Current Ratio Quick Ratio Net Wor king Capital ($M) Long-Term Debt / Equity Debt/Capital Total Debt / E quity E BITDA/Interest E BITDA.-------.-$794 $789 ====== ====== $322 $18 10% $1 $29 $6 $377 $198 $4 $579 $1 $0 $322 $19 10% $1 $29 $6 $378 $198 $4 $580 $1 $0 ---------.86 S ources: Company reports & Barclays Capital estimates Note: All Numbers in USD MM Unless otherwise noted $1. net Other non-current assets Total Assets LIAB.88 32 5.0 $48.-$842 $837 ====== ====== $519.9% 202.7 64 (9%) (8%) (3%) (3%) (3%) 0.9 1.0 $111 75.2% 151.1 $132 72.---.

Solar Energy Handbook Chapter 14: Private Solar Companies May 01. 2009 289 .

This facility should produce 200MW of solar modules at full capacity. commercial. defense. and is one of the only companies that specialize in solar shading structures. Based in Colorado. The company hopes to commercialize a variety of PV carport systems. bringing radical reductions to material costs and the weight of CPV. BP Solar International. supplies. and installs solar PV and solar thermal systems for a range of applications in the residential. is based in Frederick. to shift solar from an “alternative” to a mainstream energy source. Envision Solar 290 May 01. India. 2009 . reflect light onto a solar cell to generate electricity and are 400 times cheaper than polished aluminum mirrors. By cost effectively storing Grid or Electricity Board (EB) power. It was founded in 2006 and is based in San Diego. Abound Solar broke ground on a new manufacturing facility in 2008 with commercial production beginning around April 2009. and has operation facilities in the United States. Advent Solar’s unique approach enables higher value at many levels. 6N's goal is to be the first company to market with an affordable solar grade of silicon that does not require any mixing with electronic grade silicon to maintain optimum cell performance while allowing customers to maintain high overall production yields in their processes. Envision Solar LLC provides solar power generation services. wind. Advent Solar® Ventura™ Technology provides the blueprint for high-performance solar modules that deliver the industry’s best value for silicon PV modules. The company was founded in 1999. the ESP significantly reduces diesel generator usage thereby lowering greenhouse gas emissions. One of the world’s largest solar power companies. Solar. Advent Solar is a leading innovator for the next generation silicon based solar technology. 6N Silicon's mission is to become the leading global supplier of sola r grade silicon to the solar industry. and industrial sectors. Spain. designs. solar. Maryland. Cool Earth Solar is a developer of utility-scale concentrated solar power plants. suspended on metal and wire structures. and other mission critical industries. These inflatable “balloon” mirrors. Abound Solar Advent Solar BP Solar Cool Earth Deeya Energy Deeya has engineered a powerful energy storage platform for applications in the telecommunications. and Australia. With headquarters in the Toronto area. Biomass and other renewable energy generation platforms. manufactures. including its popular Solar Grove. 6N Silicon is in the heart of Canada's metal processing industry and is surrounded by Canada's extensive metal processing knowledge. The company uses unique mirror concentrators in its systems. Inc. which consists of “solar trees”—central poles supporting a canopy of solar panels. and other renewable power. Abound Solar (Formerly known as AVA Solar) is a producer of Thin Film CdTe modules used mainly in large scale and utility scale solar installations. Deeya's ESP is a powerful complement to Wind.Solar Energy Handbook Private Companies in America 6N Silicon 6N Silicon was founded in September 2006 by Scott Nichol. California.

vehicle sites. It was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Austin. which will be built in California. Arizona. In September 2007. building up to 200MW per year of manufacturing capacity by the end of 2009. Global Solar Energy announced that its CIGS cells had achieved a 10% cell efficiency rate. Miasolé produces thin-film solar cells based on CIGS semiconductor. specializes in thin-film PV coatings. California. HelioVolt announced that it had reached 12. It announced in June 2008 a solar power tower contract with Southern California Edison to procure an additional 245MW of solar power ramp-up by 2013. the company introduced a new thin-film product called PowerFlex Solar Strings that will simplify and accelerate the process for Building Integrated Photovoltaic. manufactures and distributes thin-film PV solar cells. The project. is expected to begin delivery in 2011. and plans to begin dish production in November. telecom and pipeline monitoring equipment and traffic signal locations. Miasolé received a $20 million grant from the Solar America Initiative. single-piston design that reduces maintenance costs (24% efficiency). Inc. more than three times its 2007 output of 180MW. At Intersolar. Infinia Corp. builds solar thermal power projects for utilities and renewable resource owner-operators. Global Solar GreenVolts HelioVolt Infinia Corporation Kyocera Miasolé May 01. Inc. manufacturers. The company is known for its patented FASST manufacturing process based on semiconductor printing for CIGS synthesis. Europe.Solar Energy Handbook Private Companies in America eSolar eSolar. It will reinforce production bases in the United States. in particular. GreenVolts’ technology enables a low levelized cost of energy. Kyocera Solar. Similar to central station power plants. portable solar chargers. The company was founded in 1985 and is based in Kennewick. Arizona. The most notable feature of its technology is the thermodynamic cycling of air to produce energy. sells solar electric systems for use in rural homes. It is located in Scottsdale. bringing its total financing to $100 million. Japan. 2009 291 . In May 2008. Inc. and is developing a new “sputtering” production process. and yet it can be built close to load. the company raised $50 million. GreenVolts is based in San Francisco. or BIPV. CIGS nanomaterial-based solar panel technology. further increasing efficiency and reducing costs. In January 2008. GreenVolts’ concentrating photovoltaic (CPV) solution is a state of the art technology designed to achieve the highest solar-to-electricity conversion efficiency through an innovative integration of optics and solar tracking. and next-generation glass modules. California. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in Pasadena. The company has announced plans to increase its solar cell production to 500MW per year in 2010. develops and sells stirling generators and cryocoolers. Global Solar Energy. It received $50 million in funding in February 2008. Infinia uses a hermetically sealed. It is based in Santa Clara. and provides heliostat mirrors. It was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Tucson. although efficiency is somewhat reduced. which reduces costs by building cells 10–100 times faster than competitors’ processes. HelioVolt Corp. At the same time. Texas. and China.2% efficiency with its CIGS cells. investing a total of ¥30 billion through the next two years. Washington.

utility. California. and utility-scale for ground-mounted plan installations. It was founded in 2006 and is based in Menlo Park. MP2 works with a wide range of commercial and government customers. and enhanced sustainability.5 (5. has emphasized the design and installation of systems atop large commercial buildings. Inc. The company fabricated the industry’s first generation 8. Germany. it built the first free-standing RWE Schott Solar array in Southern California and continues to building dynamic PV systems in the United States. with offices in New York. It has announced plans to build a 550MW solar plan in San Luis Obispo County. selling clean electricity to their customers worldwide at competitive rates via a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) or Feed-in Tariffs (FiT). and has operation facilities in San Jose. Nanosolar Optisolar Permacity Solar Petra Solar Recurrent Energy Signet Solar 292 May 01.000 homes. and individual homes. Signet has existing customer commitments of over $400 million. developers. material suppliers. Signet Solar.7 square meters) silicon thin-film solar PV module in May 2008 in a record 10 months. service providers builders and investors. The company is working to build nine 10MW solar farms in southwestern Ontario by 2010. LLC is a leading renewable energy financial services firm focused on developing financing and investing in distributed generation and utility scale projects worldwide. and government customers achieve energy independence. develops and manufactures thin-film PV modules. and residential installations. California. California and Berlin. Recurrent Energy is a developer and owner of locally-sited solar power systems. Hayward. energy merchants. turn-key SunWave™ solar electric system for utility. with a research development center in Mochau. MP2 is based out of San Rafael California. master planned communities. commercial. Petra Solar is located in South Plainfield. NJ. is a fully integrated solar energy company that manufacturers PV modules and uses amorphous silicon panels to produce power from its own planned large-scale solar farms. Nanosolar’s products include nanosolar powersheet. A ramp-up in production and shipment to customers will begin in the third quarter. 2009 . Nanosolar. California-based OptiSolar Inc. Petra Solar designs and manufactures the innovative. These systems scale from a single panel to multi-mega watts providing the most deployable. It has commercialized a low-cost printable cell manufacturing process. and began selling panels midDecember 2007. Inc. In return. The company was founded in 2002. Permacity Solar. vertical high-rise structures. is based in Palo Alto.Solar Energy Handbook Private Companies in America MP2 Capital MP2 Capital. load serving entities. Germany. manufactures and distributes solar electric panels using thin-film CIGS cells. cost effective and intelligent solar solutions in the industry. utilities. commercial. California. California —a project with the capacity to power about 190. predictable pricing. In January 2004. Construction on this $1 billion project is expected to begin in 2010. Inc. The company is located in Los Angeles. solarply for commercial buildings. The US Department of Energy recently recognized Petra Solar’s unique technology with the Energy Innovator Award.

Last July it bought Madrid -based solar tracking company Inspira to help reduce tracker costs. military. Oregon. is a wholesale distributor and systems integrator of solar electric and solar thermal systems. Its products include PV power generation and pool-heating systems. Solfocus. 2009 293 . Good Energies.8 MW of commercial solar systems in operation. California. The company’s cell multiplication technology maximizes the energy yield of silicon PV. NASA. Solar Reserve builds power plants designed as Solar Power Towers. Founded in 1984. The company was founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Petaluma. Solar Depot Solar Power Partners Solar Reserve SolarCraft Services Solaria SolFocus Soliant Energy Soliant Energy. and operates distributed solar energy facilities and sells solar-generated electricity through solar Power Purchase Agreements (sPPAs). The company was founded in 2005 and is based in Pasadena.000 systems in Northern California that account for over a million square feet of solar energy collectors. Solar Power Partners is a leading solar energy developer in the United States with over 37 completed projects. California. The company has installed over 4. This configuration captures and focuses the sun's thermal energy with thousands of tracking mirrors (called heliostats) in a two square mile field. US Renewables Group. developing tracking and concentrating PV Heliotube product platforms. develops and markets solar concentrator photovoltaic systems. Inc. (SPP) develops. Inc. and manufacturers industry leading silicon PV products. Inc. SolarCraft Services. and United Technologies among others. May 01. SPP is based out of Mill Valley California. accelerating cost savings in order to help PV get closer to Grid Parity. The company was founded in 2005 and is based in Palo Alto. Its customers include U. Solaria designs. the states of California. California. selling its products through installers. Their partners consist of companies such as Citi. Solar Power Partners. with facilities in the Philippines and Germany. Inc. owns. California. develops. The company was founded in 1998 and currently is located in Fremont. engineers are working in partnership with members of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory to develop solar panels that use 88% less PV material. designs and manufacturers solar systems. Solar Depot. manufactures and sells concentrating solar panels for commercial rooftops and carports.Solar Energy Handbook Private Companies in America Solar City Solar City is a residential PPA provider that offers a comprehensive service package to customers. federal government. At Soliant. Solar City provides continuous 24/7 monitoring with the SolarGuard Monitoring System which continually tracks the performance of their systems.S. and Washington. equaling 12. Nevada. First Solar recently made an investment in Solar City a deal that allowed Solar City to use First Solar modules in their systems. Inc.

Teksun was incorporated in April 2007 as a result of the expansion of Cat Solar. Hawaii.Solar Energy Handbook Private Companies in America Solyndra Solyndra designs and manufactures PV systems for commercial rooftops. Solyndra was founded in 2005 and is based in Freemont. government. It serves commercial. The company uses proprietary cylindrical modules and thin film technology in order to increase output while minimizing costs to purchasers of rooftop solar systems. SunRun is a home solar service company located in San Francisco. Teksun will manufacture and sell solar power panels as well as selling solar power to large utilities and industrial users of peak power. It supplies silicon wafers and feedstock to the semiconductor and solar industries. California. Solar Air Conditioning or Electrical Power. Sopogy SPG Solar SPG Solar. develops and installs solar PV systems. 2009 . BIPV projects. The others have been commercial systems ranging from a 4. SunRun Total Solar and SunRun Power Plan. Silicon Valley Solar is a manufacturer of flat plate internal concentrator solar modules. The company was founded in 2006 and is located in Santa Clara.18MW installation for Butte County. effectively reducing silicon requirements by more than 50%. Maryland. California. SunEdison LLC is a large solar energy services provider for North America. California. Over 500 of the company’s systems have been for homes in northern California. North Carolina. In May 2008. to a 1. The company was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Beltsville. Duke Energy Carolinas LLC announced that it will purchase the entire electricity output of the nation’s largest PV sola r farm to be built in Davidson County. MicroCSP technologies are used to create Process Heat. The first Sol-X module is expected to deliver twice the concentration. Sopogy was founded in 2002 at the Energy Laboratories. California. TekSun is based in Austin. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in Novato. with three locations in California. SunEdison SunRun SV Solar Teksun 294 May 01. and utility customers. Texas.0kW project at San Francisco’s AT&T Park. The company is working to commercialize its proprietary Sol-X brand technology. and are now based out of Honolulu. The company offers two premium solar solutions. Sopogy is a leader in MicroCSP technologies that bring the economics of proven large scale Concentrating Power Systems (CSP) to the distributed generation markets. Inc. The development is relevant to fixed-mount commercial arrays. SPG has received the largest renewable energy rebate in state history twice. and utility scale projects.

Tioga Energy is based in San Mateo. Tioga Energy’s expert guidance puts its customers on the right path to renewable energy and improved financial performance. Tigo Energy increases output power. resulting in a faster return on investment and lower cost of ownership. and safer. The company’s SurePathSM Solar PPA provides solar electricity to commercial. making them more efficient. more manageable. From assessment to on-going operations. Tioga EnergySM accelerates access to clean energy through long-term power purchase agreements (PPA) for renewable energy. up-time. By maximizing the energy output of each individual module. 2009 295 .Solar Energy Handbook Private Companies in America Tigo Energy Tigo Energy builds hardware and software intelligence into solar energy installations. and non-profit organizations. California. and reliability on existing and new solar installations. government. Tioga Energy May 01. Tigo’s advanced balance of system products deliver lower cost of ownership and faster return on investment for existing and new solar installations.

Jiawei Solarchina manufactures high-efficiency PV solar cells. Ltd. solar modules. it plans to add another six lines to reach 550MW. In collaboration with Applied Materials. This 60MW line will be the first phase of an expected 500MW capacity plant. By 2010. The company’s products are used in PV grid-in. 2009 . The company built a silicon feedstock factory in Beijing in 2007. creating 340MW in capacity. and 1GW in 2010.Solar Energy Handbook Private Companies in Asia (China) Aide Solar Jiangsu Aide Solar Energy Technology was founded in 2003. communication. The company aims to ramp-up production on its Applied Materials line to 500MW by 2010. portable systems. Golden Sun currently has an annual production capacity of 30MW. ENN Solar GS Solar Jiawei Solarchina QS Solar 296 May 01. Ltd. part of The Xinao Group Co.7m2 module. the company built a high-efficiency 40MW mono solar cells production line and enlarged its solar modules capacity to 150MW. was established in 2002 as a joint venture PV company specializing in the R&D and manufacturing of thin-film solar cells. It aims to produce 430kW of amorphous silicon tandem cells this year. produces and sells PV. and service. It has a research center in Beijing and two branches located in the United States and Germany. It has established a number of long-term partnerships with other PV companies such as SunPower and Astropower (currently GE Energy). In 2008. modules. The company’s business covers solar cells. (QS Solar) began making thin-film solar cells in 2008. China. and other applied PV products manufacture. ENN Solar Energy. using a new amorphous silicon solar cell production line in Jiangsu. sale. Golden Sun (Fujian) Solar Technic Co. Nantong Qiangsheng PV Technology Co. at 6% conversion efficiency It plans to have six production lines by 2009. transportation and military field. ENN Solar introduced the SunFab thin-film production line to produce its 5. independent electricity generation system. with the largest production capacity in China (25MW). The company was founded in 1993 and is based in Shenzhen. lighting. using technology developed with a Chinese university.. and the company’s capacity reached 120MW in 2007. Ltd.. and large integrated systems.

with products that are of CSG technology. In March 2008. to be completed by 2011. The company provides roof and ground systems and components (inverters. It set a new record in Germany. is a German-Dutch developer and manufacturer of crystalline solar cells. In 2008. including its Solel 6 parabolic trough solar collectors. Concentrix Solar GmbH specializes in concentrator solar power plants. charge controllers). GERMANY Solarwatt Solarwatt AG engages in the development and manufacturing of solar modules made of crystalline silicon cells in lamination technology. It the one of the biggest PV manufacturers in Germany. that will produce the key components for constructing solar fields. It was founded and is based in Dresden. with an output of 62MW in 2007. Israel. GERMANY Solel Solel specializes in solar thermal technology for solar systems and central power plans. GERMANY CSG Solar CSG Solar AG manufactures thin-film solar modules. IBC Solar was founded in 1982 and is based in Bad Staffelstein. batteries). The company was founded in 2004 and in based in Thalheim. batteries. testing). In May 2008. as well as system components (charge regulators. framing. The company recently successfully installed the first 100 kW system that is ready to be grid-connected. selling to solar module producers and original equipment manufacturers. Germany. The company is based in Beit Shemesh. The company is currently cooperating with AT&S to develop a new solar module concept with increased efficiency and reduced costs.Solar Energy Handbook Private Companies in Europe Concentrix Solar Founded in 2005. ISRAEL Solland Solland Solar Energy B.V. it announced a strategic partnership with Solar Semiconductor valued at over $575 million over the next three years. 2009 297 . In 2006. Solland Solar and Amtech Systems entered into a R&D agreement for in-line solar diffusion furnace system. GERMANY IBC IBC Solar AG manufacturers and supplies PV modules and systems. in May 2008. the company won the World Technology Award for Innovations in Energy. the Netherlands. The company was founded in 2004 and is based in Heerlen. In April 2008. Germany. inverters. after achieving A/C system efficiencies of 23% and higher.000 UVAC 2008 receiver systems that will power eight 50MW solar power plants in southern Spain. as well as value-chain equipment (stringers. the company closed a deal agreeing to supply Ibereolica Solar with over 190. The company’s customers include electrical wholesalers and specialist trade firms. Solel announced plans for a major expansion into the Spanish market with a new $120 million facility. Germany. NETHERLANDS May 01.

Asia. The company maintains a strong network of distributors and installers. focusing on building integrated product solutions. and Oceania. 2009 . much of its products have been used for rural electrification in several countries in the developing world.Solar Energy Handbook Private Companies in Europe Isofoton Isofoton S. America. SPAIN Solarcentury Holdings Solarcentury Holdings is the United Kingdom’s leading solar company. It has locations in Europe. and recently broke into the North American market. The company was founded in 1981 and is based in Madrid. as well as factories in Malaga and China. Historically. It is one of the biggest solar PV manufacturers in Europe. Spain. provides PV electricity and solar thermal hot water production solutions. specializing in a range of proprietary and third-party PV and solar thermal products to commercial. residential and public sector customers in the United Kingdom and other European countries. working with large building contractors and property developers. It was founded in 1998 and is based in London.A. UK 298 May 01. Africa.

2009 299 .Solar Energy Handbook Chapter 15: Company Descriptions May 01.

manufactures and sells solar power products. It expects to exploit its proprietary and patented technology to produce distinctive products. Shah) manufactures PV modules with an advanced thin-film semiconductor process that greatly reduces raw material and manufacturing costs compared with traditional crystalline silicon PV modules. The company’s proprietary thin-film semiconductor technology allows it to achieve an average manufacturing cost per watt that is significantly less than the per watt manufacturing cost of producing crystalline silicon solar modules. The SunPower T20 tracker. integrated systems and multi-megawatt solar power systems. SunPower products and services include high-efficiency cells. solar customers. epitaxial and test/monitor categories. primarily solar panels that provide reliable and environmentally clean electric power worldwide. The company’s customers include residential. 1-Positive. Companies SunPower (2-Equal weight. and to manufacture internationally for global market penetration. and grid-connected applications markets. continuous process to greatly reduce production costs. MEMC (1-Overweight. Shah) is a global leader in the manufacture and sale of wafers and related intermediate products to the semiconductor and solar industries. partial ingots. commercial and utility-scale power plant customers. manufactures. rural electrification.Solar Energy Handbook U. Employing “Continuous Improvement” methodologies and “Copy Smart” replication.S. The company produces wafers in sizes ranging from 100 millimeters to 300 millimeters and in the prime polished. V. V. 2009 . 1-Positive. and other industries. It manufactures solar modules on highthroughput production lines that complete all manufacturing steps. 1-Positive. and delivers high-efficiency solar electric technology worldwide. The company’s products are enabled by the company’s proprietary String RibbonTM technology. Shah) designs. 1-Positive. Korea. The company uses a systematic replication process to build new production lines with operating metrics that are comparable to the performance of its base plant. Evergreen Solar (2-Equal weight. The company has been a pioneer in the design and development of wafer technologies for more than four decades and maintains R&D and manufacturing facilities in Europe. solar panels for residential requirements. which tilts up to 25 degrees for increased energy capture. in an automated. Malaysia. The company has developed single-axis tracking systems for large-scale solar electric projects and power plants. The company sells its products through distributors. Wafers are the fundamental building blocks that virtually all solar cells are built upon. flat panel. systems 300 May 01. and scrap wafers to semiconductor device and equipment makers. silane gas. Taiwan and the United States. V. from semiconductor deposition to final assembly and testing. V. the company has been able to rapidly expand its production capacity to meet demand. MEMC continues to remain at the forefront of technology innovation with advanced manufacturing capabilities and a suite of process technologies including alternate materials. to reduce manufacturing costs through lower materials use and streamlined processes. MEMC also sells intermediate products such as polysilicon. First Solar (2-Equal weight. The company also provides performance monitoring in real-time and energy efficiency services. Japan. is the latest in solar tracking technology. The company serves the wireless power. Shah) develops.

The Silicon Mine. Historically focused on developing new products for hydrogen fuel cells. Residential. highperformance. SoG silicon feedstock production. The companies had previously entered into an agreement to manufacture the Andalay solar panels. built by its Production Technology and Machine Building division. The company’s high-volume production equipment. enabling various lines of commercial and residential building-integrated solar products. and utilizing a process-driven approach to sell and installing solar power systems efficiently in multiple locations. Japan. 1-Positive. and other value-added resellers. and Pennsylvania. structures. has become the world leader in thin-film amorphous photovoltaics technology and commercial applications. optical scanning systems. integrated solar power system designed for use in on-grid residential. United Solar Ovonic. cells. The company’s unique solar cell technology characteristics make it ideal for residential and industrial building-integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) roofing systems. and polysilicon reactors. and government applications. V. Andalay. Inc. and DC Chemical. cell testing machines. DSS furnaces. Connecticut. and sell solar products based on the String RibbonTM technology using fabrication processes that combines the manufacturing technologies of the three. Commercial and Industrial systems. ribbon flux stations. Using its proprietary thin-film. it is May 01. Hoku Scientific (not rated) is a materials science company focused on clean energy technologies. The company has entered into a strategic partnership with Q-Cells and REC to form Ever-Q. New York. Shah) has maintained a strong core competence in materials research and advanced product development throughout its history. who often add value through system design by incorporating the modules with electronics. Akeena Solar (not rated) is a solar power system designer and integrator. The company sells its products to various markets including the Off-Grid systems. and modules. was found in 1994 and is based in Merrimack.Shah) supplies PV fabrication lines and manufacturing equipment across the value chain used to produce multi-crystalline solar wafers. Energy Conversion Devices (3-Underweight. V. whose purpose is to develop and operate facilities to manufacture. and Australia. a subsidiary of the company. 1-Positive. the company has developed proprietary technology to reduce the materials cost in a solar cell. New Hampshire. market. The company is concentrating its strategic efforts on three factors: developing proprietary solar power installation technology optimized for these market segments. leveraging and enhancing its brand name and reputation. New Jersey. vapor-deposited a-Si alloy materials. rugged and lightweight. GT Solar. It is also one of the largest national installers of residential and small commercial solar power systems in the United States and services customers in California. and wiring systems. It provides tabbers/stringers.Solar Energy Handbook integrators. in Europe. GT Solar (2-EW.. Andalay is an advanced. Key developments in 2008 include major contracts with Nexolon Co. 2009 301 . etching wet benches. Akeena recently gave Suntech the license to distribute its solar panel technology. commercial. is the world’s largest and most advanced machine for the manufacture of thin-film amorphous silicon alloy solar cells that are flexible.

V. high-performance solar cell products. Based in China. 2009 . Yingli Green Energy (1-Overweight. leases. Yingli Green Energy is currently one of the largest manufacturers of PV products in China. Suntech’s China-based production lines also help keep costs down. Sweden. Yingli Green Energy is one of the few large-scale PV companies in China to have adopted vertical integration as its business model. industrial and public utility applications. 1-Positive. Construction commenced in May 2007 and Hoku plans to have it operational by year-end 2008. MSK. Suntech Power believes that its strength lies in its ability to manufacture capacity. Yingli Green Energy designs. Its products are utilized worldwide including China. JA Solar (1-Overweight. 1-Positive. In addition. Suntech’s subsidiary. sells and installs PV systems that are connected to an electricity transmission grid or those that operate on a standalone basis. manufactures and sells PV modules and designs. The company also provides PV system integration services in China. Suntech is able to provide a complete range of solar solutions. The company’s objective is to be a leader in the developing and manufacturing of low-cost. Luoyang. Qinghai and Shanghai. Its products are used in a variety of residential. commercial. JA Solar continues to supply energy demand and utilize its global marketing ability. Hoku Solar is a provider of turnkey PV systems.500 metric tons per year. The company has already entered into long-term sale agreements with Sanyo. Germany. streamline and optimize its manufacturing processes and enhancing process technologies. Shah) is the largest solar module manufacturer worldwide and has production sites at Wuxi. Suntech Power produces a wide range of PV cells and modules. offering installation services through direct sales. assembles. and power-generating endurance over multiple applications. Hoku Materials is developing a polycrystalline silicon manufacturing plant with planned capacity of up to 2. Its products and services substantially cover the entire PV industry value chain from the manufacture of multi-crystalline polysilicon 302 May 01. is one of the top-ranked companies in the building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) space. Shah) is emerging as a fast-growing manufacturer of high-performance solar cells. and power purchase contracts for commercial and select residential markets. 1-Positive. The company is focused on installing these systems in Hawaii using modules and other equipment purchased from third-party suppliers. Advancing PV as a financially viable sustainable solution. Through the MSK brand. The company offers highperformance polycrystalline and mono-crystalline modules with an array of features including stability. V. The company sells its solar cells to module manufacturers which assemble and integrate them into modules. South Korea.Solar Energy Handbook now diversifying its business to include integrated photovoltaic modules and polysilicon. Shah) is one of the leading verticallyintegrated PV product manufacturers in China. capacity. The company’s extensive R&D and product innovation continues to drive conversion efficiencies. Suntech. and the United States. V. China-Based Companies Listed in the United States Suntech Power (3-Underweight. The polysilicon business is designed to support the solar installation business by providing opportunities for partnerships in the solar industry. and Solar-Fabrik. it continues to bridge the gap between financial feasibility and environmental awareness. Spain.

and distribution of multi-crystalline solar wafers. Canadian Solar also operates one of the largest silicon reclaiming business centers worldwide. Canadian Solar (3-Underweight. industrial. The company’s major product lines are its PV modules from 5W–300W and its custom-engineered solar specialty products. V. Trina Solar is currently one of the few PV manufacturers which has developed a vertically-integrated business model from the production of mono-crystalline ingots. Spain. manufacturing. 1-Positive. and public utility applications worldwide. The company was founded as a system installation company in China. Shah) is a pure-play manufacturer dedicated solely to the design. 2009 303 . The company’s manufacturing process is based on proprietary production processes utilizing both virgin and recyclable polysilicon for ingot production. PV modules and PV systems to PV system installation. 1-Positive. development. which is expected to be completed in 2009. Trina Solar (2-Equal weight. The company produces modules with power ranging from 160W–185W. The company has strategic relationships with world-class PV equipment manufacturers GT Solar (USA) and HCT (Switzerland). China.Solar Energy Handbook ingots and wafers. PV cells. The company has also begun construction on its polysilicon production plant. which support LDK on equipment. serving customers located in various markets worldwide. Shah) is a standard solar module and specialty solar module and product company. including Germany. commercial. LDK also provide wafering services to both multi-crystalline and mono-crystalline solar cell and module manufacturers which provide their own ingots to be sliced. and cells to the assembly of high-quality modules. V. Yingli Green Energy sells PV modules under its own brand name. V. Yingli Solar. processing and supplying ingots. This integrated value chain helps to ensure highquality products to its end customers. and the United States. LDK currently produces and sells multi-crystalline wafers in two principal sizes of 125 x 125 mm and 156 x 156 mm. process and technology. The company is incorporated in Canada and conducts all of its manufacturing operations in China. to PV system integrators and distributors located in various markets worldwide. Trina Solar's modules are used for residential. Canadian Solar has become a major global provider of solar power products for a wide range of applications. broken wafers. The company expects to gradually expand annual production capacity of polysilicon ingots and wafers. wafers. LDK is able to offer its global solar cell and module manufacturer customers considerable cost advantages while maintaining quality and performance. The company has achieved a high degree of vertical integration in the solar value chain through the production of mono-crystalline silicon ingots and wafers and through the assembly of solar modules. The company's mission is to expand the global solar PV industry and make solar PV energy cost-effective for every consumer by aggressively pursuing grid parity. and other configurations. The company specializes in purchasing. Through this proprietary process. PV cells and PV modules. Shah) is a manufacturer of high-quality monocrystalline modules and has a long history as a solar PV pioneer. off-grid systems. reclaimed wafers and broken cells. The company produces a wide variety of module types that reflect the requirements of on-grid systems. LDK Solar (2-Equal weight 1-Positive. May 01.

Spain. and Turkey. Q8TT3). the PV industry. Solarfun (3-Underweight. The company has also recently started commercial activities to provide solar system integration services to end-users in China through a subsidiary. V. Q--Cells has built a worldwide presence with customers in countries such as Germany. Austria. and sells high-performance solar cells made of mono-crystalline and multi-crystalline silicon. V. industrial. recycling and wafer production operations. South Africa. Madlani) is the second-largest manufacturer of PV cells worldwide. Japan. commercial. R. particularly to European markets. India. 1-Positive. The company develops. from the semiconductor industry and increasingly. The company has entered into a strategic partnership with 304 May 01. The company has consistently focused on extending its product capacities and constantly advancing its production methods. Shah) is a leading manufacturer of solar cell products in China as measured by production capacity and a pure-play cell manufacturer focusing on the highest value segment of the solar value chain. ReneSola sells solar wafers both to Chinese and international PV cell manufacturers. V. and manufactures 100% of its modules with in-house produced PV cells. 2009 . China Sunergy (2-Equal weight. Q6LTT. Korea. The company plans to improve existing technology in two synergic core businesses of the Group.Solar Energy Handbook ReneSola (2-Equal weight. It sells these solar cell products to Chinese and overseas module manufacturers and system integrators. Cyprus. Solarfun sells its products both through third-party distributors and directly to system integrators. which assemble the solar cells into solar modules and solar power systems for use in various markets. ingot tops and tails and other off-cuts. Solarfun Modules have been used worldwide for various residential. The raw materials used in ReneSola’s production process are sourced principally through recycling silicon. Shah) is a leading manufacturer of wafers for the PV industry and one of the fastest-growing companies in the industry. and other countries. 1-Positive. produces. European Companies Q-Cells (2-Equal weight. pot scrap. Cells are also sold to customers in Italy. It offers a range of mono-crystalline (Q6M. The company produces both monocrystalline and multi-crystalline silicon cells and modules. The majority of the company’s sales are to customers located in China. The modules sold by the company range in power between 160W–200W. Shah) manufactures both PV cells and PV modules. Solarfun also provides PV cell-processing services for silicon suppliers. and supplies solar system integration services in China. Q6. 2-Neutral. and solar field projects. The company produces high-efficiency mono-crystalline and multi-crystalline silicon solar cells. The company is also able to sell its additional PV cells to end users due to its large manufacturing capacity. Q6LM) and multi-crystalline (Q5. Q6LPS. ReneSola believes that continuing effort in R&D is an important corporate strategy to maintain its competitive edge over the competition. thus setting industry standards. 1-Positive. Q-Cells has deliberately established itself as a specialist in a key position of the PV supply chain. The company supplies these cells to the manufacturers of solar modules. provides PV cell-processing services to convert silicon wafers into PV cells. Canada. in the form of different types of part processed and broken wafers. Netherlands.

It also operates a small systems installation company. which makes REC well-positioned to analyze and execute on strategic opportunities. Asia. The group controls the development of solar power technologies at all levels in-house. Ersol (not rated) is a German PV company with production plants in Arnstadt. It also enables REC to perform joint technology development. 2009 305 . The company has entered into a strategic partnership with Evergreen Solar and Q-Cells to form Ever-Q. whose purpose is to develop and operate facilities to manufacture. Erfurt. market. Solarworld (2-Equal weight. Solar Vision. REC Solar produces solar cells at its plant in Norway and solar modules at its facilities in Sweden. from trade with solar panels to the construction of solar power plants. in South Africa. Solarworld AG has positioned itself as a sustainable vertically integrated organization in the international solar market place. REC Silicon is the world’s largest dedicated producer of silicon materials for the PV industry. Madlani) started off as a solar trading house and is now one of the largest solar concerns worldwide. R. Sweden. solar cells. The objective of the integration strategy is to be able to define and optimize the development of technology at all stages of manufacture and thus to gain in terms of costs from the synergy effects and to derive a qualitatively high-quality product from the experience gained at all levels of the value chain. Madlani) is organized in three divisions: REC Silicon. Ersol Silicon specializes in the recycling of silicon. from feedstock to module production. and Camarillo in California. The presence in all parts of the value chain of the PV industry is one of REC's key strengths as it provides in-depth industry insight. enhancing other strengths. whose purpose is to develop and operate facilities to manufacture. Africa. The company has international production and sales units in Germany. and the United States. notably efficient and scalable operations with lean manufacturing and mass production concepts implemented throughout the group. and sell solar products based on the String RibbonTM technology using fabrication processes that combines the manufacturing technologies of the three. Its own production of polysilicon secures the growth potential of all REC businesses. REC Wafer. REC (1-Overweight. 2-Neutral. as well as specialized mono-crystalline wafers. PV modules and mounting systems. and May 01. and REC Solar. and sell solar products based on the String RibbonTM technology using fabrication processes that combines the manufacturing technologies of the three. The company produces multi and mono-crystalline silicon solar cells and has also started thin-film module production. The company is focused on the manufacture and marketing of PV products worldwide by integrating all components of the solar value chain. market. and the scope of the Ersol Group subsidiary currently covers silicon for solar and semiconductor applications. and produces silane and polysilicon for the photovoltaic and electronics industries. and crystalline PV modules. REC Wafer is the world’s largest producer of multicrystalline wafers and produces multi-crystalline wafers for the solar cell industry at two production facilities in Norway. The products offered include custom-made construction kits. metallurgical grade silicon. Spain. integrated roof systems. 2-Neutra.Solar Energy Handbook Evergreen Solar and REC to form Ever-Q. wafers. R. Ersol is divided into the four major business segments of silicon.

Within PV. R. Ersol claims that its cells provide high. 2009 . 2-Neutral. which remain within close tolerances over long periods. Ersol Wafers is a specialist manufacturer of mono-crystalline ingots and wafers. The company specializes in the integration of PV technology into buildings. Conergy develops solar collectors and systems. mono-crystalline silicon wafers.Solar Energy Handbook support products. and France. 2-Neutral. pump assemblies. mounting systems. Southern Europe. storage tanks. which include flat-plate collectors. Solon (3-Underweight. and system monitoring equipment. Also included is the production of sine wave inverters for off-grid applications. currently producing mono-crystalline silicon ingots. off-grid inverters. it offers products that cater to private homes and businesses as well as large solar plants. Apart from module production. A small number of OEM products are manufactured. Most of these modules are manufactured at Solon's German facilities and marketed under the company's own brands. string inventers. although it has production centers worldwide. In solar thermal products. photovoltaic and wind components and supplies exclusively via commercial partners. this segment also includes a wholesale business based on products from other manufacturers. The solutions offered are for grid-connected installations as well as off-grid installations and architecturally unique constructions. The solar modules segment comprises standard modules with outputs of 120– 130 watts. stable outputs. The system technology segment comprises the manufacture and distribution of the Solon mover power plant system and the solar module project business. and 156 mm x 156 mm. Conergy is planning a customer-oriented diversification of its product range. Madlani) manufactures solar-thermic. market and is also working to capture market share in Spain. and complete systems. Italy. R. Madlani) is a major European solar module manufacturing company focused on the European market. solar charge controllers. Ersol Modules supplies photovoltaic modules based on high-efficiency mono-crystalline and multi-crystalline silicon solar cells in the sizes 125 mm x 125 mm. Conergy uses its know-how to offer tailor-made components and complete systems for optimal exploitation of solar energy and in order to continually develop them further. control units. Conergy (2-Equal weight.S. The company plans to significantly increase its capacities for manufacturing wafers and solar cells. Conergy has offers products in both PV and solar thermals. central inverters. 306 May 01. The most important target customers of this business segment are wholesalers specializing in solar technology and installation companies. Conergy now operates subsidiaries in 25 countries on five continents. Ersol is currently focusing on markets in North America. grid connected inverters. crystals and wafers with a special twin structure. Ersol Solar Cells currently manufactures multi-crystalline and monocrystalline silicon solar cells in 156 mm x 156 mm format. Besides recently expanding into the most promising solar markets worldwide. The core business of the Solon group consists of solar modules and system technology. and China. These include PV modules. The company acquired a stake in Global Solar Energy in 2006 to gain access to the U. 150 mm x 150 mm. and crystals and wafers with special dopant impurities.

5” multi-crystalline solar PV cell.Solar Energy Handbook Taiwanese Companies E-Ton (not rated) is a pure-play solar PV cell manufacturer focused on the production of mono-crystalline solar PV cells. which formed a joint venture with Spire to address the PV system installation market in the United States. Its product offerings including 5” monocrystalline solar PV cell. 2-Neutral. develops. E-Ton also recently acquired ADEMA Technologies. Applied SunFab thin-film Line enables customers to manufacture worldclass. ETon’s top-tier customer base includes companies such as Solar-Fabrik. The company has recently started a series of vertical integration activities to capture more value from the solar chain. E-Ton designs. The company is committed to developing highefficiency solar cells with innovative technologies such as AR coating and in-line PECVD. manufactures. PHOEBUS is based on a vertical. Motech’s current end customers are concentrated in Europe. 2009 307 . Spain. The company designs. Muse) offers customers solutions for fabricating three types of solar modules based on crystalline silicon wafers. Germany. The company is currently expanding its in-house ingot and wafer capacity in China. especially Germany. Motech (not rated) is one of the largest solar PV cell manufacturers worldwide. Leybold Optics (not rated) is one of the world's leading providers of vacuum technology. C. 5.7m2 thin-film silicon PV modules. Motech also produces high-precision test and measurement equipments. The company also uses PHOEBUS. develops. manufactures and markets a variety of PV cells. Display/Glass. J. 6” mono-crystalline solar PV cell. In addition to solar PV cells and systems. and is developing new customer relationships in the United States and China. The Applied SunFab Line delivers state-of-the-art manufacturing capability needed to produce the lowest cost per watt modules. and Italy. and for flexible PV solar modules that use non-traditional substrates to provide light-weight solar power for mobile applications and facilitate innovative low-cost methods for installing solar on buildings. and sells a variety of high-q uality monocrystalline and multi-crystalline PV cells and PV systems. Headquartered in Alzenau. The company focuses on 3D-Coating/Web. Since 2001. it is managed by Mr. carrier- May 01. Gloria Solar. The company has started to vertically integrate since 2006. But the company has also started diversifying its geographical exposure and expanding to more end markets including the United States and South Korea. Optics. which deliver the highest sunlight-to-electricity conversion efficiencies. its PECVD solution for the silicon thin-film solar cell industry. The Taiwan-based company has customers across the globe. They are also used for areaconstrained applications such as homes. to enter the PV module business in 2006. founded by the Swedish industrialist family of Wallenberg. and Solara. for large-area thin-film solar modules on glass that are well-adapted for large-scale power plants and building integrated photovoltaics (BIPV). Solar and Special Systems. and 6” multi-crystalline solar PV cell. has been part of the private equity fund EQT. E-Ton established a subsidiary. Helmut Frankenberger. Solar Equipment Companies Applied Materials (2-Equal weight. Solaria. a wafer manufacturer in the United States. with a strong focus on Europe.

pumps and vacuum components used in the semiconductor. the absorber represents the biggest part. southern Europe and the United States and established sales and service subsidiaries in these regions. R. 2009 . 2-Neutral. R. "The ULtimate in VACuum Technology. Madlani) is among the leading suppliers of PECVD equipment for deposition of amorphous hydrogenated silicon nitride as passivation 308 May 01.Solar Energy Handbook free linear cluster approach to avoid both particle contamination issues common for horizontal systems and the elevated costs associated with vertical systems. manufacturers. Roth & Rau (3-Underweight. is an international corporation that designs. 2-Neutral. It offers key equipment and turnkey production lines for crystalline cells and thin-film modules. while maintaining its production and technology centers in Germany. VON ARDENNE supplies the necessary production equipment and essential technologies used in the manufacture of both wafer-based and thin-film solar cells. and markets equipment and materials for industrial applications of vacuum technology. Oerlikon mass production solutions are modular and upgradeable in throughput. The company also has thin-film module turnkey lines. ULVAC Technologies (not rated). Centrotherm has expanded its global footprint in Asia. which is particularly true for so-called tandem and triple cells. PECVD (plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition) is generally used to deposit the absorber layer consisting of a PIN junction from a silane hydrogen gas mixture using boron and phosphor containing dopant gases for the P and N layers. and industrial manufacturing markets. disk/magnetic media. which are used to manufacture different kinds of solar cells. image processing." VON ARDENNE’s (not rated) core skill in the field of PV. Madlani) with more than 20 years of experience in robotics. The company works in close cooperation with its customers to develop sector-specific automation solutions. The corporation is composed of some 36 individual companies engaged in all sectors of the vacuum industry. The fully automated high-yield. The most crucial component of any silicon thin-film solar cell is the light-absorbing layer. Today. respectively. Centrotherm (2-Equal weight. and control engineering. (2-Equal weight. as well as process technology. Madlani) has been a part of the PV industry since 1979 and is a technology and service provider for the manufacturing of solar cells and solar-grade silicon. founded in Japan in 1952. the conversion of solar energy into electrical current. instrumentation. Oerlikon Solar (not rated) offers field-proven production solutions for thin-film silicon solar modules based on its extensive experience in thin-film mass production technology. is a world leader in its field. Manz Automation. ULVAC is a leading global supplier of production systems. 2-Neutral. lies in thin-film technologies. R. and low maintenance solutions focus on reducing device cost and maximizing productivity. Compared to the overall thickness of the solar cell. The company has supplemented its crystalline cell product offer with reactors and converters for manufacturing solar silicon. The ULVAC name is derived from the company's conceptual foundation. high-uptime. flat-panel display. which are sold worldwide.

improve health care. Meyer Burger (2-Equal weight. Meyer Burger’s machines. biomedical devices. enhance security. Applying its expertise in materials technologies across all product lines. 2-Neutral. and firing of the solar cell. wear-and-tear parts. and in the optical industry. drying. The company’s offering includes various models of high-precision machines. Madlani) is a leading supplier of highprecision machines with wire saws. cells. consumables. Spire (not rated) is a diversified technology company providing innovative solar energy manufacturing equipment and solar systems. Germany. coating. APCVD coating. Spire has a rich heritage of applying science and research to develop products that generate renewable energy. support. R. as an iron foundry and mechanical workshop. BTU was a pioneer in the diffusion. prisms. Schmid delivers production equipment for wafers. the semiconductor industry. and other shapes. and deliver advanced solutions to businesses worldwide. or high-performance LEDs. training and other services. integrated circuits. an industry where BTU is also a market leader. and modules. Schmid (not rated): Gebr. photovoltaics. band saws and ID/OD slicing systems for cutting hard and brittle materials such as silicon. sapphire or other crystals into wafers.Solar Energy Handbook and anti-reflective coatings for crystalline silicon solar cells. Solar cell manufacturing requires several thermal steps similar to semiconductor manufacturing. process know-how. These processes include diffusion. and other dry etching applications in photovoltaics and plasma process equipment for research and development. regrooving service. and metallization processes. Further products are plasmaetching systems for edge isolation. skills and technologies are mainly used in the solar industry (PV). BTU provides thermal solutions for all of these process steps. Schmid was founded in 1864 in Freudenstadt. May 01. spare parts. 2009 309 . BTU International (not rated) has participated globally in the PV industry since the 1990s. and optoelectronic components. Since 2001 the third Schmid business field. These three markets all require the thinnest possible wafers of silicon or sapphire for the manufacture of solar modules. is a success story worldwide.

2009 .Solar Energy Handbook 310 May 01.

Solar Energy Handbook Chapter 16: Solar Energy 101 May 01. 2009 311 .

7M Jobs) P roduc tion 1 4% Installation 75% Wholes aler 4% Res earc h 2% Supply 5% The solar industry offers significant social benefits in the form of job creation. World solar cell shipments reached a consolidated figure of 6.900MW in 2008. Installations in Spain grew by 350% to 1. Barclays Capital research World solar PV market installations reached a record high of 5. Figure 313: Job Creation Potential of Solar PV Industry Worldw ide Em pl oym ent i n PV-Related Jobs 2030 (3. Wholesaling of the systems and indirect supply for the production process each create three to four jobs per MW with research having one to two jobs per MW. Source: EPIA. This essentially gives a boost to the local economy.363 MW per year earlier. Extensive research on the solar industry has shown that approximately 10 jobs are created per MW during production and nearly 33 jobs per MW are created during the installation. while the United States increased by 55% to 341MW.926MW. is the world's fourth-largest market behind Japan. Barclays Capital research 312 May 01.115 MW in 2007.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 312: World Solar PV Market (2008) Japan Italy Rest of Europe 3% 3% 5% Others 9% Spain 38% US 7% Germ any 35% Source: Solarbuzz. Germany's PV market reached 1. The job creation extends across the value chain and also influences supplementary industries and businesses. A large number of jobs created are in the installation part of the value chain. The U. 2009 .793MW in 2008 and now accounts for 35% of the world market. representing growth of 90% over the previous year.S. Polysilicon production for both solar and semiconductor use rose 37% in 2008. up from 3.

Bar clays Capital research Figure 316: Cumulative PV Installa tions (2020) Middl e East . Spain.2. 4% Economies i n Transition. Barclays Capital research Figure 315: PV Cell Exports 1.0 00 59 7 5 00 0 (5 3) -5 00 . which includes Germany.6 21 ) .07 7 1. Europe has continued its trend as a major net importer due to the increased demand from Germany and other southern European markets such as Spain. and especially the United States. Europe has garnered the most part of the PV value with over 74% in 2007. with China accounting for more than 10% of annual installations in 2020 and South Asia accounting for 9% of the 2020 installations.S.5 00 ( 1. 40% Africa.1. Italy. Currently. Source: EPIA. and South Asia are expected to garner a large part of the share. 3% Centralized South Ameri ca. North America. possibly becoming the largest markets by 2030. In the past few years.5 00 1 . the share of Europe is expected to decrease steadily over the next few years. As other markets continue to evolve around the world. Spain. China and South Asia are expected to continue their growth. 2B ) Nor th Am er ica 8% Cen tra l and So uth Am erica 1% Value of PV Market 2030 ($170B) Eur ope 10% Nor th Am erica 13% Euro pe 7 4% O ther 2 5% East Asia 1% Chin a 1% Cen tra l and So uth Am erica 11% Ea st Asia 8% Sout h Asia 15 % China 18% O the r 14% Sou th Asia 1% The value generated across the PV chain has been increasing considerably over the past few years. 2009 313 . China and Taiwan have emerged as the new and growing supply centers. Africa.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 314: Value of PV Market Value of PV Market 2007 ($13. Middle East. Source: EPIA. 17% OECD North America. 15% OECD Europe.1. 1% OECD Paci fic. and Greece. Other developing markets include OECD Pacific. is expected to emerge as a large market with consistent growth in the next few years.0 00 . 4% OECD Europe. This is primarily due to the large solar markets of Germany. and Italy. their proportion in the total has steadily decreased. and Greece. Japan has meanwhile maintained its position as a major exporter as its own solar consumption has stagnated. 1% South Asia. Developing markets like North America. and Economies in Transition which are expected to create over 25% share in the PV value chain. While Japan and Europe continue to be important cell manufacturing hubs.0 00 Jap an China / R st of th e Wor ld e U SA Eur op e Ne t Cell Exp or ts 20 07 (MW) The major demand centers for the PV industry remain the markets of Europe. is expected to remain the largest market through 2020 both in terms of annual installations and cumulative installations. Barclays Capital research May 01. 8% East Afri ca. Source: Solarbuzz. has steadily moved from an exporter in 2004 and 2005 to a net importer from 2006 onwards. China and South Asia is expected to emerge as a large market by 2020. Italy. 7% China. The U. China. mainly due to growth in annual installations.

000MT of high-purity silicon was available to meet the demands of the entire solar industry in 2008. MEMC. In 2008. 2009 . Mitsubishi Materials. and Sumitomo.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 317: Polysilicon Market Share. REC.500MT of scrap and reclaimable silicon was used by the major solar companies in 2008. Tokuyama.214MT Source: Barclays Capital estimates 314 May 01. 28.000 metric tons of production in 2008. We estimate that only 28. Mitsubishi Polysilicon. Solar. the share of solar in polysilicon procurement has been rapidly increasing over the past few years. About 71% of polysilicon is supplied by eight companies. We estimate 52. up 35% from 37. Wacker. Despite this. We estimate that 22. only about eight polysilicon manufacturers are able to produce high-quality polysilicon on a large commercial scale.036MT Semiconductor 26. The major poly producers are Hemlock. 2008E Hemlock Semiconductor 21% Tier II Suppliers 30% Tokuyama 10% MEM C 7% Wacker 14% REC 11% Mitsubishi M at erials 3% Sumitomo Titanium 2% M itsubishi Polysilicon 2% Currently. a number of companies also began using upgraded metallurgical silicon to meet their silicon requirements. Source: Barclays Capital estimates Figure 318: Polysilicon Supply The polysilicon industry supplies the semiconductor and solar industries.000 metric tons in 2007. The semiconductor industry has been able to garner a larger share of the poly silicon market due to early -mover advantage in ensuring supply from the major polysilicon producers.

The policy-driven scenario shown expects the follow-up and introduction of support mechanisms. 2009 315 . China produced more than 1. Europe was the second largest producer of solar cells in 2008. 1 5% Module . respectively. Europe 27% China 34% Source: EPIA. Barclays Capital research Figure 321: Solar Cell Equipment Market. In total. The United States and Japan were the third and fourth largest producers of solar cells in 2008. Pe ssimi sti c S ce nari o Poli cy Sc ena rio Source: EPIA. Approximately $160 million of the cell equipment market was thin-film and the rest was crystallinesilicon. The pessimistic scenario is shown in the chart and is based on the premise that the market is unable to receive any major enforcement of support mechanisms.300MW of solar cells in 2008. such as feed-in tariffs. and other measures taken by governments worldwide to aid the solar PV industry. the world produced more than 5MW of solar cells in 2008.0 00 10 .0 00 6 . Barclays Capital research Figure 320: PV Market Scenario 12 . Source: Barclays Capital research May 01. with a 17% and 15% market share.0 00 8 .600MW worth of Solar Cells in 2008. Led by Suntech.4 billion in 2006. with a 27% market share. 15% c-Si C . 10 % We estimate that the solar equipment market was $1.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 319: PV Cell Production (MW) in 2008 Solar Cell Market Share 2008E Taiwan 7% Japan 15% USA 17% In 2008. China was the world’s largest solar cell producer. with the wafering market roughly $200 million (or 15%). JA Solar and Yingli Green Energy.0 00 0 200 1 20 02 20 03 20 04 2 005 2 00 6 2 00 7 20 08 E 2 00 9E 2 010 E 2 01 1E 201 2E The PV market is expected to continue its rapid growth. the cell market around $1 billion. Europe produced more than 1. 2008 Waf ering. and the module market roughly $200 million.0 00 2 . 60% ell TF Cell.0 00 4 . in a large number of countries.

Multicrystalline thin-film on glass (CSG) is also a promising thin-film technology now entering industrial production. with the top 10 producers accounting for 70% of the global market. Copper indium diselenide (CIGS). Sharp is planning to increase solar capacity in order to regain the top spot in 2009.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 322: Solar Cell Production.Cells 11% Motech 5% F irst Solar 9% Q-Cells remained the biggest solar cell producer worldwide in 2008. vs. Average thickness is expected to reduce to 150 microns by 2010. Companies such as SunPower. Sanyo. JA Solar. Efficiencies of over 20% have been obtained with silicon cells in mass production. 2009 . and Motech are also among the largest module manufacturers worldwide. Kyocera 4% Source: Photon International. Trina Solar. Thin-film modules have also become commercially accepted due to the current shortage of silicon. Yingli Green Energy. Source: Photon International. We expect First Solar to become the largest solar company in 2009 with more than a 20% market share. Wafer thickness is also an important factor. 2008 JA Solar 5% Yingli 6% Sanyo 2% Suntech Power 10% Rest of World 36% Sharp 9% Solar Wor ld 3% Q. 50% one year ago. Barcla ys Capital research Figure 323: Solar Cell Technologies. and cadmium telluride (CdTe). 2008 cadTel 9% a-Si 3% CIGS 1% Mono-cr ysta lline 43 % Othe r 1% Multicrys talline 4 3% Crystalline silicon is the mainstay of most PV products as it is widely available in nature. The solar cell market is becoming less fragmented. They are manufactured from amorphous silicon. Barcla ys Capital research 316 May 01. A number of companies such as First Solar (FSLR) and Yingli Green Energy (YGE) raised production considerably in 2008.

The remaining plants are nearly equally divided between those greater than or equal to 50MW–10MW and those greater than or equal to 10MW– 1MW. 2009 317 . SolarWorld. 1% Solar cells are created from wafers.00 0 8 . Barclays Capital research May 01.00 0 6 . The broad range of consumer electronic products based on semiconductors has been the main driver for the semiconductor demand. This has been despite the fact that the supply to the semiconductor industry has grown steadily whereas the solar industry growth has been considerably higher.00 0 4 . Source: Solarbuzz. In 2007. 75% >=10MW< 50MW. This has led to a number of solar cell companies also announcing backward integration into wafer manufacturing.00 0 7 . Wafer manufacturing capacity is expected to expand considerably in the next few years as companies expand to meet increased demand. The major wafer manufacturers include companies like REC Wafer.00 0 3 .00 0 1 .00 0 2 . silicon feedstock supply to the PV industry first overtook the semiconductor industry supply. LDK.00 0 5 . Most of the wafer manufacturing plants are large in size. The larger wafer manufacturers have been moving toward greater levels of vertical integration. being more than 100MW in capacity. 11% >=100MW. It was only in the recent past that the demand from the PV industry began to compete with semiconductors for the silicon feedstock. 14% <10MW. and Renesola. Barclays Capita l research Figure 325: Wafer Manufacturing Plants C-Si Wafe r Manu facturin g C apacitie s b y Plant Size (2007) >=50MW< 100MW. Source: SEMI Silicon Manufacturers Group.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 324: Silicon Demand for Semiconductors Silicon Use in the Mic roelectro nics Indu str y 9 .00 0 0 20 07 2 00 8E 2 009 E 20 10 E 201 1E 2 01 2E The semiconductor industry has been the major consumer of silicon traditionally.

The most attractive tariff has been announced by the state of Victoria. and First Solar. They are generally created from wafers. In 2007. California launched the Go Solar California campaign. which will provide AUD0. with Q-Cells announcing such plans.3 billion.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 326: Cell Manufacturing Plants Solar cells are a basic building block for solar modules and panels. The federal government currently provides a grant of AUD8. which plans to install 3. This is expected to change in the near future due to a number of incentives announced by a number of state governments. Barclays Capital research Figure 327: Australian PV Market (MW) The Australian PV market has grown gradually over the past few years. Source: California Energy Commission. It will be available for household installations up to 2kW and have a cap of 100MW. This will start from 2009 and run for 15 years. A number of companies are also backward integrating into creating their own wafers. San Francisco plans to install a total of 360MW of renewable energy by 2017. A number of these companies such as Suntech and First Solar have vertically integrated and use their own cells to produce their modules. The installed capacity in California grew by 38% in 2007 to 81MW from 59MW in 2006. Individual cities have also initiated steps to promote solar. Suntech. Barclays Capital research 318 May 01.60 for every unused kWh fed back into the system. 90 60 30 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E Source: IEA and Barclays Capital research Figure 328: California PV Market (MW) 300 200 100 0 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E California is the largest solar market in the United States and continues to grow at a rapid pace. Source: Solarbuzz. The largest proportion of cell production (61%) nonetheless comes from the larger manufacturers (greater than or equal to 100MW).000 per household for installations and 50% for schools. The initiative is expected to require investments of $3. The largest portion (45%) of solar cell manufacturing companies are extremely small in size and produce less than 10MW of solar cells annually.000MW of solar capacity by 2017. Sharp. 2009 . This would power more than half the electricity needs of the city. Major solar cell companies include Q-Cells.

is home to some of the major solar companies involved in nearly every aspect of the value chain. meters by 2010 and 300 million sq. meters by 2020. and to 3% by 2020.8GW by 2020. The lack of any major financial incentive has meant that the industry has not been able to grow to its full potential. EPIA May 01. The government has not provided any financial incentive for solar. which is being seen as a barrier to exponential growth. China has been more focused on solar hot water as an energy source as it has a larger benefit for the rural population. 200 100 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E Source: Barclays Capital estimates. from polysilicon manufacturing to BIPV products. It has targeted 150 million sq. solar energy technologies are primarily used for air and water heating. including 450MW of solar generation capacity. 2009 319 . though. In Canada. The Canadian Solar Energy Industries Association believes that Canada has a potential PV market of 3GW in the coming years. Solar capacity is to be increased to 1. The country also plans to increase its renewable energy capacity to 60GW by 2010.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 329: Canadian PV Market (MW) 400 200 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E The Canadian PV market has grown at a CAGR of nearly 25% since 1993. Source: EPIA and Barclays Capital research Figure 330: Chinese PV Market (MW) The Chinese government has said that it will increase the development of renewable energy to curb its reliance on oil and gas. Canada. China plans to increase its share of non-hydro renewables to 1% of total power generation by 2010.

2009 . Barclays Capital research 320 May 01. despite its high electricity prices.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 331: French PV Market (MW) 1600 1200 800 400 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E France has set itself a target of 20% share of renewables in energy consumption by 2020. 300. by which time cumulative installations in France are expected to rise above the 1GW mark. Source: EPIA. Five million solar thermal units are also to be installed in buildings by 2020. especially in the south and in the overseas territories. In addition. the French government is planning to have an installed capacity of 5. France also benefits from favorable irradiation conditions. By the end of 2006.50/kWh. The government is also giving a 50% income tax credit for private individuals. Grid parity in France is expected to be achieved by 2012.000 PV systems were installed in Germany. EPIA Figure 332: German PV Ma rket (MW) 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E The introduction of the Renewable Energy Law in 2000 accelerated the German PV market by providing a buyback rate of EUR0.4GW by 2020. In 2004. a revised feed-in tariff program accelerated the PV deployment even further. Source: Barclays Capital estimates. The government has also initiated a strong feed-in tariff scheme especially attractive for BIPV installations.

000 per month and reduced by two-thirds the maximum amount paid for PV panels. Under the new feed-in tariff program. 250 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E Source: Barclays Capital estimates.2 5.6 0 . The government has set a target of renewable energy generating 15% of the nation’s needs by 2020. Source: IEA and Barclays Capital research Figure 334: Greek PV Market (MW) Greece has become one of the potentially most attractive markets for solar PV development after the introduction of the RES law in June 2006. The government has set a target of 840MW of solar PV installations by 2020. Although growing at a CAGR of about 35% from 1993 to 2006. There have been about 2.8GW cap that was initially part of the tariff has been removed. other countries such as Germany (55%) have grown at a much faster rate despite a larger base.7 1 .500 to install PV panels.K. EPIA May 01. but lack of infrastructure may be a concern for installations. The success of this measure had an adverse effect as the government capped the payouts to £500. Out of these. 640MW are to be on the mainland and 200MW on the islands. The Greek market is expected to grow the fastest among the large solar markets. which is a near fivefold increase over the current scenario.4 19 96 0. The tariff is guaranteed for 20 years. the 0. 9 4.3 19 93 0. 9 8 .Solar Energy Handbook Figure 333: U.1 1 99 7 1 99 8 19 99 2 00 0 20 01 2 002 2 00 3 20 04 20 05 2 00 6 The solar PV market in Great Britain has lagged behind other markets of mainland Europe. These measures have been a severe damper for the market.5GW of applications already submitted to the government. PV Market (MW) Gre at Bri tai n PV M arket (M W) 14 1 0.1 2 . The government also plans to ensure that all new homes are zero carbon by 2016. 2009 321 .9 0. 3 1 99 4 0 . The British government had offered to subsidize solar installations by giving up to £7.7 1.4 199 5 0 . new tariffs are adjusted annually on the basis of retail price increases and inflation. In addition.

Source: IEA and Barclays Capital research 322 May 01. Businesses can also instal up to 50kW of capacity although no tariff scheme has been disclosed for them yet. The assistance has been set at Rs 12 ($0. The Indian government hopes that the private sector will invest about Rs 10 billion (US$253. A number of states. Source: Barclays Capital estimates. and exterior lighting. security and alarm systems.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 335: Indian PV Market (MW) 500 400 300 200 100 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E The Indian government plans to increase its renewable capacity to 35GW in 2012 from the current 11GW.50 ($0. West Bengal plans to generate 50MW from solar by 2015 while Punjab is offering 100MW of solar PV projects.30) per kWh for solar PV and Rs 10 ($0. Individuals currently pay NIS0. EPIA Figure 336: Israel PV Market (MW) 80 40 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E The government in Israel has committed to propagating solar by announcing a feed-in tariff scheme to encourage household solar electricity generation.46) per kWh.01 ($0. Typical installations in Israel center on remote homes. The main incentive for the solar industry has been in the form of financial assistance announced in January 2008. It is expected that a return on capita investments will take seven to 10 years. The tariff scheme started from July. have also introduced subsidies for solar. agriculture.25) per kWh for solar thermal power fed into the grid. communications. such as West Bengal and Punjab. 2009 .11) per kWh Private producers will be able to install a photovoltaic system with a capacity of up to 15kW. The Public Utilities Authority will purchase the electricity at NIS2.7 million) during 2008– 12 to develop solar plants.

1200 600 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E Source: Barclays Capital estimates. Large IPP and medium to large commercial systems offer good potential in the near term.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 337: Italian PV Market (MW) The Italian government plans to reach an installed capacity of 3GW by the end of 2016.000 applications during 1Q09. They expect 35. Japan has reintroduced subsidies on solar power equipment in 2009 in order to boost the PV industry in the country. entails fixed remuneration for the first 20 years for PV projects. 600 300 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E Source: Industr y data. Japanese companies such as Sharp and Kyocera are among the larges solar cell producers in the world. These firms have lost a considerable amount of market share since the Japanese government scrapped solar subsidies in March 2006. There is an annual reduction of 2% every year for new applications. EPIA Figure 338: Japanese PV Market (MW) Japan is one of the largest markets worldwide for solar products The government’s target is to increase the solar installed capacity to 70% of all new homes by 2020.2GW is achieved. The government has also simplified the process of getting access to the grid by the introduction of the new program in February 2007. 2009 323 . inspired by the model used in Germany. The structure has been put in place until a cap of 1. The government has also set up an attractive feed-in tariff structure.000 Yen/KW ($775/kw) in subsidies during 1Q09. Barclays Capital estimates May 01. The prices of solar panels are then expected to halve in three to five years in Japan. The governmen is paying 70. The structure.

EPIA 324 May 01.2 18 . Systems between 1MW and 3MW will receive incentives of $0. Grid parity is expected to be reached by 2012 in the country.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 339: Mexican PV Market (MW) 25 Cum ul ated i nstall ed PV Power (MW ) 20 16. The country has provided an incentive through feed-In tariffs of US $0.9 1 7. Source: Barclays Capital estimates. A major cause of the lack of any rapid growth in the industry has been the lack of any major financial incentive for the industry from the central government. Despite this.49/kWh.7 8. By 2013. predominantly from hydro and geothermal sources of energy.4 billion in subsidy for PV installations in a bid to meet its targets. Mexico also has a large solar thermal capacity in addition to this. 2009 .9 1 5. Barclays Capital research Figure 340: South Korean PV Market (MW) 800 400 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E The South Korean government has set a target of 5% energy generation from renewables by 2011.0 11.7 18.1 9.64/kWh for systems 30kW–200kW and US$0.58/kWH while systems in excess of 3MW will receive incentives of $0. These tariffs will decrease by 4% per year from 2009 onwards.1 19. Source: EPIA. Mexico is estimated to have an installed capacity of 25MW.61/kWh for systems between 200kW and 1MW. Mexico currently generates about 24% of its electricity from renewables. although a large increase in the fossil fuel prices could take it closer.3GW of PV capacity by 2011.2 15 12 .2 10 .0 13 .0 10 7. The gross solar potential is estimated at above 5kWh/m2 daily. This corresponds to about 50 times the national electric generation requirement of the country. which would generate about 14GWh of electricity per year. We estimate that South Korea will provide over $15. the PV industry has grown at a slow pace with a CAGR of about 8% from 1993 to 2006. It also plans to install 1.0 12.8 5 0 199 3 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2 000 2001 2 002 2003 20 04 2005 20 06 Mexico is believed to have one of the best potentials for solar electricity generation worldwide.

Homeowners and businesses are increasingly turning to solar power in the city. 2009 325 . the $2. The city of Chicago has been the epicenter for installations in the state. 22% Energy Manageme nt. or k y Ha wa ii Co nn ec tic ut on a a ch us et ts M a ss al ifo rn ia Co Source: Barclays Capital research. California and New Jersey led in solar installations in 2007.000 cap was removed and utilities are not allowed to take advantage of the subsidy. Source: City of Chicago. This has been aided and encouraged by state and federal incentives. Barclays Capital research May 01. 2 5% Co gene ration .Solar Energy Handbook Figure 341: U. The Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic opportunity provides a Solar Energy Rebate Program that reimburses 30% of the solar projects costs up to $10.S. PV Market (MW) 14 0 12 0 10 0 80 60 40 27 39 18 22 15 13 4 4 3 3 3 4 2 3 1 2 1 1 97 11 6 20 07 2008 20 0 The main incentive driving PV demand in the United States is the 30% federal tax credit. The department has allocated about $1 million over the past two years. Photon International Figure 342: Solar Energy in Illinois Projected Chicago Energy Dist ribut ion 2010 (6 BkWh) Distri bu ted Gene ration. 25% The state of Illinois has seen a steady increase in business and home solar power installations. In addition. Seventeen states have committed to fund installations of more than 10GWp of solar power in the next 15 years. The city is expected to generate 25% of its electricity from renewables by 2010. 28% N ew C Ne O re g on ev ad a Je rs e ra do Y N Ar iz o l w Renew ables. The recent extension of the ITC for solar installations is also expected to provide a tailwind to the industry. Various state governments and municipal governments have taken active steps to propagate PV installations including feed-in tariff structures in some states. Recently the ITC was extended by eight years.000 for PV and solar thermal systems.

due to the strong sustained growth being shown in these markets. Barclays Capital research 326 May 01.4 Germany 36.8 Greece 0. Germany.S. The share of ongrid installations has also increased considerably since 2003 with a large portion of the new installations being on-grid while the off-grid market has stagnated. Solar Market The U.5 Netherlands 3. Source: Solarbuzz.2 Austria 3. Barclays Capital research Figure 344: U. Countries such as Spain. and Greece are expected to increase this considerably in the coming few years. Other important markets include Italy.3 Italy 1. 2009 . solar market is expected to be boosted by the recent extension in the ITC.3 United Kingdom 0.S. Source: Eurobserver. and Spain. and France. A number of recent contract announcements and solar farms were dependent on the extension of these subsidies.4 Portugal 0. currently the largest market. Greece. given its size and population.S. Luxembourg has the maximum PV power per inhabitant in the entire European Union.7 Cyprus 1. Italy. largely due to its small population.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 343: PV Power per Person in the European Union PV Power per Person in the EU (2006) Country W / Person Luxembourg 51. and had a 57% share in the 2007 on-grid installations. The results of the various measures taken by Germany are visible through the high amount of PV power per inhabitant in the country. California has been the largest market in the U. continues to be the most important market for solar in the world.5 Denmark 0.6 Sweden 0.2 Europe is home to some of the biggest markets for PV power such as Germany.1 Spain 2. which has grown considerably in PV installations in 2007.5 France 0. This is expected to provide significant headwind to the solar markets in California and the rest of the country.0 Finland 0.5 Belgium 0. Other initiatives such as the Renewable Portfolio Standards have also contributed to the rapid growth in the industry.

the country was the largest producer and consumer of solar panels. The solar market in Japan decreased from 300MW in 2006 to about 230MW in 2007. The largest segment in the Japanese market is the residential market which accounted for over 85% of the total market. Most of the exports are to Europe which has seen significant growth in the last few years. Japan was replaced by Germany as the largest market thanks to the aggressive push from the German government. Initially aided by government support. Japan though remains one of the largest producers of solar panels and is a net exporter. Barclays Capital research May 01. 2009 327 . From 1994 to 2004. Source: Solarbuzz.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 345: Japanese Solar Market Japan has been one of the largest markets for solar energy in the world. The lapsing of solar subsidies in Japan dealt a severe blow to the Japanese market which was recently overtaken by Spain and is currently one of the largest solar markets outside Europe. The government has recently said that it is considering measures to boost the sector. Source: Solarbuzz. the Japanese residential market grew at a CAGR of 85% while it only grew at a CAGR of 13% from 2001–07. The fastest growing market is the public sector market. Barclays Capital research Figure 346: Japanese Solar Market The Japanese market had started to stall post the expiry of the residential market subsidies in 2005.

The government structure in the U. solar market has been growing over the last few years. This growth is expected to continue now after the passage of the ITC. has allowed a number of cities and states to come out with their own local policies and subsidies despite a lack of such initiatives from the federal government.S. Barclays Capita l research 328 May 01. The solar programs in California and other states have been very successful in propagating the technology. CT NY US Avg 0 CA NV NJ AZ CO HI DE VT Source: Interstate Renewable Energy Council.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 347: U. Solar Market 10 Cumulative Installed Capacity per P erson 8 6 4 2 The U. and New York. Nevada. Colorado. 2009 . Arizona. The major demand centers for solar include California.S.S. New Jersey.

Solar Energy Handbook Solar Incentives Figure 348: Building Integrated Photovoltaic Incentives BIP V I ncentives i n M ajo r M arke ts ($/kWh) Ge rm any $0 .70% 99.40% The California Solar Initiative pays solar companies their incentive in two ways. The size of the commercial rooftops market is expected to rise from nearly 2GW in 2008 to close to 5GW in 2012.10% 96.90% Total 159 17 176 10.55/kWh ($0. This is being driven by commercial installations such as retailers. Although any size system can take PBI. The EPBB payments are made on a $ per watt basis. 61 $0. all systems over 50kW must take it from 2008 and all systems over 30kW must do so from 2009. The payments are made for a total of five years and are based on actual kWh production.75 G rou nd Roo ft op G ro und B il ing ud Ap plied Building Integ ra ted Gr oun d Building Applied Bu ld n g i i Inte gr ate d The Building Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV) industry is expected to grow rapidly in the next few years. Source: CUPC.50% 41 9 50 6. The PBI payments are provided on a per kWh basis. 48 $0 .60% 98. 2009 329 . Germany provides a EUR0. Barclays Capita l research May 01. Source: Energy Conversion Devices. Tariffs in Italy vary inversely with the size of the systems. schools and universities. A number of major markets have also put in place specific incentives for the BIPV market. The tariff is currently highest in France. Barclays Capital research Figure 349:California Solar Initiative PBI System Size <30kW 30<50kW Total # of Systems <50kW % of Systems <50kW in PBI % of Systems <50kW in EPBB 2008 CSI Projects Below 50 kW t hat Opt in to PBI CCSE PG&E SCE 35 3 38 1. The payments can be a lump sum for smaller systems or can be taken over the course of five years.898 0.877 3. airports.30% 83 5 88 2.88) for BIPV installations and EUR0.08) premium for BIPV installations.8 8 $0 .48) for Building Applied and ground-mounted PV installations.30/kWh ($0.855 1.50% 96.68 $0. shopping malls.5 8 $0.48 It aly Fra nc e $ 0.05/kWh ($0. warehouses and factories apart from utilities and residential installations. The initiative’s two payment types are Expected Performance Based Buy-Down (EPBB) and Performance Based Incentive (PBI). which provides a fixed tariff of EUR0.080 3.76 $0 .

New Hampshire. new solar or distributed-generation (DG) set-asides were created in Delaware. While some states gave rebates on property taxes.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 350: State Tax Incentives State Florida North Carolina Arizona Maryland New York Tax Exemption Property Tax Exemption for Solar Power Systems Property Tax Exemption equal to 80% of appraised value of PV Systems Reduced Property Tax Assessment for Renewables owned by Utilities Exemption from Sales and use taxes for solar property Property Tax abatement against the installed cost of a PV System Exemption from sales and use taxes on property that is meant to manufacture renewable energy systems Kentucky In addition to tax rebates and RPS programs. New Mexico.S. 2009 . State Arizona C olorado D elaware Mary land N ev ada N ew Hamps hi re N ew Jers ey N ew Mex ico N ew York N orth Carolina Penns ylvania W ashington D. First Compli ance Year 2001 2007 2008 2008 2003 2010 2004 2011 2006 2010 2006 2007 Photovol taics √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Resource Eligi bility Sol ar Thermal Sol ar H eating E lectric √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ and/or Cooling √ Non-P V Di st.C . while North Carolina created a law that exempted a portion of the value of the PV system from property tax. Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. A number of states have thus taken the initiative of designing their policies to give support to higher cost renewable technology applications. Set-asides for solar technologies exist in nearly half of the U. Maryland. some states are enacting other programs to motivate both residents and non residents to build solar and renewable projects. Source: Interstate Renewable Energy Council. and geothermal energy sources. Generati on √ √ Traditional RPS programs carry a concern that they will benefit mostly least-cost projects as all eligible renewable technologies can compete. In 2007. wind. Florida revived a property tax exemption for homes and businesses that installed solar. Kentucky gave an exemption on sales and use taxes on property which was purchased for creating renewable energy systems. and North Carolina. Barclays Capita l research Figure 351: Solar Specific RPS in the U. Colorado also effectively expanded its previously initiated solar set-aside through an increase of its state’s overall RPS target. For example. Barclays Capital research 330 May 01. State RPS programs.S.

The participation of the Investor Owned Utilities is primary to achieving the aims of the CSI.1 21. 6 12. The combined demand had been the highest in 1Q07 at 11. Both these programs are now closed to solar and have been replaced by CSI. 6 Reside nti al Non Reside nti al 33 30. 5 0 Q406 Q107 Q207 Q307 Q407 Q108 Q208 Q308 Q408 Q109 (QTD) The incentives provided under the California Solar Initiative (CSI) are monitored by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).8 13. However.6 10.1 3. The projects considered below under ERP are largely residential.2 15.1MW.9 10.3 9. and the Emerging Renewables Program (ERP) which installed 26MW in 2007. Source: CPUC and Barclays Capital research Figure 353: California Solar Initiative Demand The California Solar Initiative (CSI) started in 2007 with the Go Solar California campaign that aims to install 3.0MW. the ERP had funded both residential and small commercial installations under 30kW. The program had not categorized the applications by residential versus non-residential systems. which primarily consists of residential applications. the demand through CPUC has increased considerably over the earlier demand seen for the Emerging Renewable Program (ERP). but has since decreased slightly to 7.3 9. although some small commercial applications have also been included as they were less than 10kW in capacity. which installed 33MW in 2007. 6 14. 25000 ERP S GI P CSI Number of Applica tions Rec eived 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20008 2009 Source: CPUC and Barclays Capital research May 01.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 352: California Solar Initiative Solar Applications R eceived (MW) 43.8 15.3 26. 2009 331 .6 27. For the under 10kW sector.3 billion effort.000MW of new grid-connected solar by 2016 through a $3.9 22. The demand for the CSI program is nearly exceeding the demand seen by earlier initiatives such as the Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP).6 1. 9 8.

the confirmed applications grew to 178. there are no annual targets.750MW by 2017.R si ential e d PG&E R si ential e d CCSE Non. In 2008. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) has a target of 764MW. the program has received over 359.3MW of confirmed reservations were processed. as demand is expected to vary due to changes in incentives and market maturity.R si ential e d CCSE R si ential e d 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% The goal of the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) portion of the California Solar Initiative is to increase the solar installations in the state to 1. The previous programs. Although 208MW of applications were received in 2007 through the CSI program. started in 1998. 2009 .e. Southern California Edison (SCE) has the largest target of 806MW.9MW of solar in 2006 through the ERP and SGIP programs. There were 97. Since the start of 2007..R si ential e d In Application Remaining SCE R si ential e d PG&E Non.5MW.8MW of solar capacity through the ERP and CSI programs. and the California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE) has a target of 180MW. Out of the three administrators.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 354: California Solar Initiative Installations Inst alled SCE Non. the CSI program received 18. Source: CPUC and Barclays Capital research Figure 355: California Solar Initiative Program Appl icati ons Receieved (MW) 30 0 25 0 20 0 15 0 10 0 50 0 2 003 2 004 2 00 5 2 00 6 2 00 7 2 00 08 200 9 ERP SG IP CSI The demand generated by the California Solar Initiative (CSI) is quickly surpassing that of the previous programs launched in California.826 applications totaling 222.8MW worth of applications. the Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) started in 2001 and the Emerging Renewables Program (ERP). Although the CPUC has divided the goals by program administrator and customer segment. In 2007. These two programs are now closed to solar. only 160. had also managed to generate considerable demand for solar. Source: CPUC and Barclays Capital research 332 May 01. i.

000MW of solar electricity generation capacity over the next 10 years. initiatives for energy efficiency. Rebates on renewable energy systems. funding for renewable energy R&D. Barclays Capital research May 01. 12 2 $8 5 $80 $12 7 $ 2 . In effect. Source: DSIRE. This is typically done through the electric utility restructuring process. g. Barclays Capita l research Figure 357: Net Metering 100 50 25/2 . The New Solar Homes Partnership is managed by the California Energy Commission (CEC). inve sto r-o wned uti lities only) for certain types investor. .ned ow Net metering of fe re d b y one o r m re individual utilities offer by ed or ore ind ivid ual utilitie s o Net-metering is an electricity policy for consumers who own. and industrial customers are eligible for net-metering.940 MW $400 Million 360MW $784 Million 700MW Scope Audience Begins All systems in O UI areas except New homes in All systems in new homes IOU territories POU areas Builders.000 * 25* 2.000* 100 * 50 * * 100 40 10 * * * 15 no limit 25 * 20/ 100 * ** NY: * PA: * NJ: varies 80. It provides incentives to customers in investor-owned utility (IOU) areas of PG&E. commercial. It allows for the flow of electricity both to and from the customer. It propagates solar in new home constructions within the territories of the three investor-owned utilities.000/5.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 356: California Solar Initiative Program California Public California Publicly Utilities Energy Owned Utilities Pr ogram Authority Commission Commission (POU) Budget Solar Goals (MW) $2.3 billion. and low-income support groups. Southern California Edison. the customer is using the excess generation to offset electricity that would have been purchased at the retail rate.000 25 /300 10/ 100 25 /100 * * DE: MD: DC: VA: 10/ 25/ 125/ 400 50/3. All customers are typically charged a certain amount on electricity consumption as a means of supporting the charge.000 2. electricity from the customer to the utility offsets electricity consumed at another time by the customer.000* 2. Various Various home buyers Jan-07 Jan-07 Jan-08 The goal of the Go Solar campaign is to install 3. These utilities control more than 75%–80% of the state’s electricity usage. each of which has its own set of budgets and goals. but some states restrict eligibility to particular customer classes. Under most state rules. 000 1.5 15 State Funds + DC $4 B by 2017 Funded by Vol untary Contributions Public Benefit Funds are state-level programs developed as a measure to ensure continued support for renewable energy resources. The statewide budget for the initiative is $3.167 Million 1.04 8 $20 VT: $36 M A: $383 RI: $10 CT: $338 NJ: $279 DE: $11 DC: $10. Source: DSIRE. The Publicly Owned Utilities (POU) program requires every municipal utility to provide a solar incentive program. renewable energy facilities. The campaign is split into three distinct programs. 000* 25/500/2. When the customer's generation exceeds use. and the development of renewable energy educations programs are ways in which the fund can be used . residential.000 * 25 100 * VT: 15/150 100 40 500 * 25 /10 0 * * 20 * * 30 1. 2009 333 . The California Solar Initiative is overseen by the CPUC.000 100 10/500* 50 v aries * State-wide net metering for all utility ty pes State-wide S tate-wide net metering f or ce rta in utili ty typ es (e. generally small. Source: CPUC. and San Diego Gas & Electric. Barclays Capital research Figure 358: Public Benefit Funds $ 10 $ 95 $11 1 $2 2 $ 1.

Source: DSIRE. and Pennsylvania leading the charge. The legislation calls for different levels of subsidy according to the source of electricity generated. Arizona. It is projected that EUR7. rising to EUR10. Renewable Portfolio Standards In addition to the support at federal level.9 billion of feed-in tariffs will be paid in 2008. Barclays Capital research 334 May 01. The legislation aims to support the introduction of renewables-based electricity generation plants and meet the emissions reduction targets set. Maryland. about half of the states have currently committed to fund the installation of more than 10GW of peak solar power in the next 15 years. Barclays Capital research Figure 360: U. Grid operators have the right to pass on all surcharge payments to the suppliers and the amount can be reduced to EUR0.1 billion in 2010.7 billion of feed-in tariffs were given in 2006. German Interconnected Power Grid Association. the states and municipal governments provide rebates for PV system purchases. Source: RWE Factbook. Germany in TWh Renewable energy surcharges expected to increase The German government has been a major proponent of renewable sources of energy. with California. Germany enacted the Renewable Energy Legislation. About EUR 7. which has been effective since 2000. Furthermore.05/kWh if a company consumes more than 10GWh.S.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 359: Renewable Energy Ac t. New Jersey. 2009 .

It came into effect in 2005. State Solar Goals Su mmary o f State Solar Go als (MWp ) State Comm itment by 2020 Arizona 2. The objective of the protocol is to reduce greenhouse gases in order to prevent climate change.S.000 California 3. Barclays Capital research Figure 362: Kyoto Target for Reduction of Greenhouse Gases The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 in Kyoto by the 3rd Conference of the Parties. is the only developed country not to have ratifies the Kyoto Protocol although it has signed it.000 Connecticut 15 Colorado 200 Delaware 175 District of Columbia 30 Hawaii 15 Maryland 1. Source: DSIRE. hydrofluorocarbons. Barclays Capital research May 01.S. The goal is to lower emissions of six greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide. Source: EPIA. The Mojave desert in California has among the highest solar insolation rates across the globe and is a hub for solar PV and solar thermal projects. 2009 335 . The protocol cover 181 countries across the globe but only 60% of global greenhouse gas emitting countries.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 361: U.400 Nevada 500 New Hampshire 34 New Jersey 1. Most of these states have also set up Renewable Portfolio Standards to meet their goals of reducing dependence on fossil fuels. The U.2% compared with the year 1990. nitrous oxide. perfluorocarbons – averaged over the period 2008–12. methane. New Jersey is currently the second largest state in terms of solar installations and is also the fastest-growing market in the United States. The Kyoto Protocol calls for industrialized countries to reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5. which is not only the largest market in the United States but is also among the largest in the world.500 New York 25 North Carolina 240 Pennsylvania 860 Texas (Austin) 100 The lack of a clear nationwide solar goal for the United States has resulted in a number of states taking the lead and committing to solar by setting individual targets for installations by 2020. Primary among these is California. sulfur hexafluoride.

500. and are based on the size of the system installed (in watts) or the amount of energy the system products (in kWh).50 /W $50 0 fo r 3 1 sq.50 /kWh (20 08 price w as $0. Barcla ys Capital Research Figure 364: Washington State Utility Solar Incentives Utility Sys tem Res idential a nd Comme rcial Ince ntive s C ap up to $1.500 In addition to the Federal Investment Tax Credits. 100 kW system Chelan County PUD All PUD PV Sola r Wa ter He ater Klickitat PUD All Okanoga n County PUD Orca s Power & Light All All Sola r Wa ter Port Angeles Public He ater Wor ks & Utilities PV Richland Energy Ser vic es Re side ntial $1.200 R ebates up to 2 5kW $ 4.00 $40 0/kW Maximu m Ince ntive $1/kWH N one $ 1. $ 1.25/kWh) 2 5kW $50 0/kW N /A $50 0. ft co lle cto r N /A $50 0/kW N /A $50 0/kW $ 2. combined w/State PV Rebate Great River Energy All Minneso ta Power All In addition to the Federal Investment Tax Credits. The rebates that these utilities provide vary. 2009 . The rebates that these utilities provide vary. there are seven utilities offering incentives for installing PV in Washington.000 for a 60 sq.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 363: Minnesota State Utility Solar Incentives Residen tial and Commercial Utility Austin Pub lic Utilities Type of Syst em All Incentives Up to $1.00/kWh $2/Watt $2/Watt Cap 40kW $4. The chart details the different utilities in the state of Washington and their specific incentive plans. Barclays Capital research 336 May 01. residents from the state of Washington can also receive rebates from their utility companies for installing solar panels on their roof.000. combined w/State PV Rebate $4. The chart details the different utilities in Minnesota and their specific incentive plans. Source: Solar Electric Power Association. According to the Solar Electric Power Association. as well as if the system is a solar water heater or PV installation. coll ector. but they vary based on whether the installation is for Residential or Commercial use. According to the Solar Electric Power Association. residents from Minnesota can also receive rebates from their utility companies for installing solar panels on their roof. there are three utilities offering incentives for installing PV in Minnesota.000. Source: EPIA. ft.

The chart details the different utilities in Colorado and their specific incentive plans. Source: EPIA.05/KwH None In addition to the Federal Investment Tax Credits. In addition to the solar incentives provided by the utility companies.000 $115/ MwH N/A N/A N/A $1. Barclays Capital research May 01. but they vary based on whether the installation is for Residential or Commercial use. According to the Solar Electric Power Association.00/ W $2. up 50% of install ed cost s $35. Source: EPIA. there are two utilities offering incentives for installing PV in the state of Florida. as well as if the system is a Solar Thermal or PV System.50/W $0.000 Color ad o Spri ngs Uti li ti es In addition to the Federal Investment Tax Credits. The rebates that these utilities provide vary.500 $1. The chart details the different utilities in Florida and their specific incentive plans.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 365: Florida State Utility Solar Incentives Utility Utilities O rlando Utilities Commision System Resident ial Commercial So lar Thermal PV Resident ial and Commercial Incent ives Cap $1. the utilities also provide Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) to homes and businesses that install solar panels.115/KwH $20. The rebates that these utilities provide vary. residents from Florida can also receive rebates from their utility companies for installing solar panels on their roof.00/ W $3. According to the Solar Electric Power Association. 2009 337 . 000.75/ W $2/W $2/W $2/W Determined through RFP Process $2/W N/A $3.03/KwH None $0.000 $200.500 $0. Barclays Capital research Figure 366: Colorado State Utility Solar Incentives Uti li ty Black Hil ls En erg y T ype of System Resid ential (<10 kw) Commercial (10 kw 100kw) Resid ential (<10kw ) Commercial (10kw 25kw) Holy Cro ss En ergy Xcel Energy Al l Resid ential (<10kw ) Commercial (10kw 100kw) Sol ar Farms (100kw 2M W) La Plata Electric Associ ati on Resid ential Resid ential and Co mmercial In cen ti ves REC's Cap $2. there are five utilities offering incentives for installing PV in Colorado.50/W $37.50/W $7. but they vary based on whether the installation is for Residential or Commercial use.75/ W $3. residents from Colorado can also receive rebates from their utility companies for installing solar panels on their roof.50/W $2.

424 2030 4. Nearly 6.3 million people across the world are expected to work in solar-related activities by 2030.00/W In addition to the Federal Investment Tax Credits.00/W N/A Sulph ur Spring s Valle y Ele ctr ic Coo per ative $4 . CPS Energy and Austin Energy. Commerci al: $100. Source: EPIA.000 or 5 0% of costs Commerc ial Utility Arizona Pub lic Services Compa ny Salt River Pro jec t O n Grid In cen tive Off G rid Ince ntive $2 .000 people were employed in Germany alone in 2006.000 or 50% of Costs Commerci al: $50.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 367: Texas State Utility Solar Incentives Utility Aus tin Energ y Reside ntia l and Co mmercial O n Grid In cen tive Man ufactu red in TX Cap Residen tial : $13. A 1kW system requires about 100–200 square feet of roof area. provides additional rebates for PV systems that were manufactured in the state of Texas. A large part of the job creation is at the end installation point. Source: Barclays Capital research 338 May 01. according to a scenario generated by the EPIA. there are three utilities offering incentives for installing PV in the state of Texas. the increase in volumes will continue to propel job creation. Barclays Capital research Figure 368: Employment Generated by Solar Worldwide Employment in PV. The Three utilities participating in the program are Bryan Texas Utilities. According to the Solar Electric Power Association.00 /W Cap 50% or $7 5. Although these numbers are expected to decrease over the coming years.50/W $2 .60 /W of costs. In general. The incentives range between $4. Industry information suggests that 10 jobs are created per MW during production and 33 jobs are created per MW during the installation.500 or 80% $4 .462 533 160 69 200 3.50 /W $4.00/W N/A costs per year Residen tial : $10. 2009 .related Jobs (' 000s) Year Installation Production Wholesaler Research Supply Total 2006 48 14 4 2 5 74 2010 179 51 15 7 19 271 2015 531 140 42 18 52 783 2025 2. Nearly 35.716 893 268 116 334 6.50/W $1.000 o r 80% of $4 . Barclays Capital research Figure 369: Roof Area Needed for Various Sizes of PV Systems PV module efficiency (perc ent) 4 8 12 16 PV capa city rating (watts ) 1 00 30 15 10 8 250 75 38 25 20 5 00 10 00 200 0 40 00 Roof are a ne eded in squa re fee t 1 50 75 50 40 300 150 100 80 6 00 3 00 2 00 1 60 12 00 600 400 320 10 000 300 0 150 0 100 0 8 00 100 000 3 000 0 1 500 0 1 000 0 80 00 Rule of Thumb: One square foot of mono-crystalline or polycrystalline PV module area produces 10 watts of power in bright sunlight. A PV array using 500–1.327 Photovoltaic and other renewable applications have generated significant benefits in terms of job creation.000 square feet of roof space is required for meeting all of a homeowner’s needs.00/W and $5.60/W. Source: EPIA. The chart summarizes the incentives that the Texas utilities provide. depending on the type of PV module.000 or 80% of costs Lesser o f $12. and in the case of Austin Energy.50 /W $2.50/W $5.000 Excess of $500. leading to job opportunities at the local level.000 requires pre approval 50% of Project Costs Bryan Texas Utilities CPS Ener gy $3 . residents from Texas can also receive rebates from their utility companies for installing solar panels on their roof. the amount of roof area needed depends upon the PV module’s efficiency in converting sunlight to electricity and the generating capacity or rating of the PV system.

over 90% of the new PV installations were on-grid.grid indu str ial 2030 Consumer App lications 91% 95% 80% 7 2% 1% 5% 4% Annual PV Ins tallations by A pplic ations 1% 1% 2% 6% 2% 14% 0% 9% 1 9% Over the past few years the % share of On-grid applications has increased considerably. Barclays Capital research Figure 371: Cell Manufacturing Japan and Europe have been the traditional manufacturing centers for the solar industry. The primary reason for this is expected to be the rise in off-grid rural electrification. Barclays Capital research May 01. Italy. The solar industries in Germany and the southern European markets of Spain.S. Source: Solarbuzz. off-grid rural electrification. These have also been the major demand centers with Europe being the largest market. This trend is expected to continue in the near future. 2009 339 . This has been aided by the various government subsidies and programs such as feed-in tariffs. there has been a distinct shift in manufacturing towards China. China and Japan are major exporters of cells while Europe and the U.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 370: PV Installations by Applications 1 00% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 200 7 20 10 On-grid Off-g rid rura l el ectrifica tion 2020 Off. which due to its immense potential should witness considerable growth. Source: EPIA. In 2007. Although China is not a major demand center. it has become the largest producer of solar cells. Since 2004. In the future it is expected that the share of on-grid installations will fall. Greece and France have benefited from attractive government subsidies. All applications for PV installations such as on-grid. off-grid industrial and consumer applications are expected to increase in absolute terms. have now become net importers.

13 0. The predominance of crystalline silicon though meant that the total solar cell growth in 2007 was 56%. although lifetime operating costs are much lower for off-grid PV than for other energy sources. The other main alternative for rural electrification. 44 0. 11 0. 18 0.26 0. absence of fuel expenses. 25 0. Barclays Capital research 340 May 01. 2009 . whilst solar energy’s ‘fuel’ is both free and inexhaustible. Source: EPIA.1 2030 0. solar cells have been primarily made from crystalline silicon. Barclays Capital research Figure 373: Competitiveness of Off Grid Applications Berlin P ari s Washington Hong Kong S ydn ey/Buenos Aires/ Bom bay/ M ad rid Bangkok Los Angel es/ Dubai S ource: EP IA. requires a considerable investment.08 0. Among crystalline silicon.13 0. PV is generally competing with diesel generators or the potential extension of the public electricity grid. B arclays Capit al Solar Daily Sunshi ne Hours 900 1000 1200 1300 1400 1600 1800 2007 0. In 2007. 14 0. The high investment costs of installing renewable energy systems are often inappropriately compared to those of conventional energy technologies.09 0. the extension of the electricity grid. Source: Solarbuzz.3 0.12 0.17 0. However.1 0. 33 0. initial investment costs can still be a barrier for people with little disposable income.35 0. 2 0. In fact. 22 E uros/Watt 2010 2020 0. 28 0. The recent shortage of silicon has also led to an exponential growth in solar cells made from thin films.07 Off-grid applications are mostly already cost competitive compared to the alternative options. the thin film segment grew by over 120% while the crystalline silicon segment grew by only ~50%. particularly in remote locations. a combination of low operation and maintenance costs.22 0.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 372: Solar Cell Growth Traditionally. 15 0.07 0. Off-grid applications are therefore often the most suitable option to supply electricity in dispersed communities or those at great distances from the grid. the growth in both multicrystalline silicon and monocrystalline silicon was equivalent. 39 0. The growth in the thin film segment has been higher than the growth in the crystalline silicon solar cells.2 0.24 0.31 0. increased reliability and longer operating lifetimes are all factors which offset initial investment costs. The fuel costs for diesel generators are high. This was a considerable increase from the 33% in 2006. This kind of lifecycle accounting is not regularly used as a basis for comparison.

and Barclays Capital research Figure 375: PV Installations by Applications 1 00% 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40% 30% 20 % 10 % 0% Consumer applications Off-grid industrial Off-grid rural electrification On-grid 2006 2010 2020 2030 The major PV applications include on-grid.2 31.1 It is estimated that US$300 billion–US$500 billion will be used to finance company investments in the PV sector. driven by the successful promotion policies of some countries.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 374: Evolution of Solar Applications PV Insta l la tions (MW) 26 0 207 198 195 1262 891 1537 260 0 134 146 281 2002 464 2003 2004 G d Connected ri 2005 Isol t ed a 2006 2007 In recent years. rising fossil fuel prices.6 14. Source: EPIA. Isolated PV installations. growing at a CAGR of 12% from 2002–07 compared with grid-connected growing at 56% and total PV installations growing at 46% over the same period. The share of gridconnected PV has increased substantially from 66% of the total installations to 91%. A large portion is also expected to be generated through the capital markets by issuing equity.9 0. off-grid rural electrification. Off-grid systems often have batteries to store the electricity produced and have no access to the electricity grid. Source: Marketbuzz. grid-connections dominate with 85% of the market share. Barclays Capital research Figure 376: PV Sector Investments 16 0 14 0 PV Sector Investments (US$ Billion) 2. Currently. Venture capital funds have played an important part in setting up a number of companies over the past few years and are expected to continue investing in small private companies before taking them public.5 0. Barclays Capital estimates May 01. have lagged.5 24. PV connected to the network has seen impressive growth. off-grid industrial. whereas grid-connected applications can feed electricity directly into a netw ork.9 40 20 0 9. All of these are expected to increase in absolute numbers from 2006 to 2030. Solarbuzz. This is expected to further increase over the next few years as the growth in isolated PV stagnates. their total amount of investment is expected to increase. This share is expected to fall in the future to off-grid applications.1 33.3 84 49. and climate change and the need for a sustainable energy model.5 12 0 10 0 80 60 1. Rural electrification is expected to experience considerable growth due to its immense potential.3 2 00 8 200 9 Debt Capit al Ma rke ts 2 01 0 Ven tu re Cap t al i 2 01 1 114. Most of the money required is expected to be raised through debts taken by the companies. 2009 341 . As venture funds gain more exposure to the sector. on the other hand. and consumer applications. the lower costs of technology. Source: GEI.

This did not consider large hydropower in renewable capacity. which together comprised nearly 75% of the tota l capacity . Germany. which was about 5% of the 4. and Sanyo have consistently lost market share to them over the past few years. Source: EPIA. silicon capacity predefines the upper production limit for the solar industry. Germany (27GW). The fastest-growing companies in the solar module space include Suntech. 2009 . Barclays Capital research Figure 379: Solar Module Production. Being a major raw material. silicon capacities should reach 8–10 GWp by 2010. The largest component in this was small hydro and wind power. closely followed by Sharp and Suntech (STP). and the United States. and FSLR. according to EPIA. 2008E Other s 14% Schott Solar 3% Sanyo Sola r 3% Solar world 4% Solar fun 4% Ca nadia n Solar 4% Kyocera 4% Ersol 5% Trina Solar 5% Sharp Solar 11% Suntech 12% First Sola r 13% Yingli Gr een Energy 7% Motech 5% SunPower 6% First Solar (FSLR) is expected to be the world’s largest module producer.16 GW p 4 GW p Source: EPIA. which grew by 38%. While crystalline solar continues to be the dominan technology. Barclays Capital research Figure 378: Production Capacities (2010) Silicon supply has long been the bottleneck of the PV industry With the vast expansion of production capacities of known players and the introduction of new capacities.14 GW p 14 . Silicon W afer Cells c -Si Modules T hin Film 8 . the United States (26GW). Barcla ys Capital research 342 May 01.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 377: Renewable Power Capacities. with companies from countries such as Japan. they have continued to lose their dominant marke share position to thin film players such as FSLR. which grew by more than 150%. Global capacity was estimated to reach 240GW in 2007.12 GW p 11 .10 GWp 10 . The largest countries in terms of capacity were China (52GW). The solar module market is very diverse in terms of geography.300GW tota worldwide capacity. Source: Photon International. Thin-film capacity is also expected to increase and represent about 20% of the overall module production capacity. The 2006 capacity was a 14% increase over the 2005 capacity. Mitsubishi Electric. 2006 240 Solar PV (grid) Ge othermal Biomass Wind Small Hydro 180 120 60 0 Worl d D eveloping World EU-25 Chi na G Un ited e States r Spa in India Ja pan Renewable electricity capacity worldwide reached an estimated 207GW in 2006. and Spain (14GW). These companies have already started to rapidly gain market share while major companies such as BP Solar. China.

Si T hin -f ilm PV Mo du les/Pane ls Com pan y NexPower T echn ology Gre en Ener gy Tech nology Auria Solar Chi Me i Ene rgy AU Optro nics (via sub sidiary) Sun Well Solar Kenmo s Ph otovoltaic Si onar So a r n l Fo rmo sun Solar Sunner Solar F ou nde d No vembe r 200 5 Ju ne 20 07 October 200 7 Januar y 2008 Establishm ent an nounce d in Octo ber 2 008 July 20 07 Septem ber 2007 Septem ber 2005 Januar y 2005 July 20 07 Cur re nt Oper atio na l St and ar d Ha s starte d pr oduction and sh p ment s i T o star t volume pro duction in Decemb er 20 08 Inst alln g pro duction e quipm ent i Installing pr oduct o n equ p ment . Barclays Capital research May 01. Source: Solarbuzz. Italy. silicon cells and modules and thin film cells and modules. 2009 343 . and France have benefited from attractive government subsidies. with an increasing number of Chinese and Taiwanese companies entering the market in the last few years. to star t pr oduction in Q109 i i N/A Ha s starte d pr oduction and sh p ment s i H s start ed pr oduction a Ha s starte d pr oduction and sh p ment s i Ha s starte d pr oduction and sh p ment s i H s start ed pr oduction a As the competition in the solar industry grows.base d M aker s o f a. This holds true for the solar industry as well. Source: Digitimes. it has become the largest producer of solar cells.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 380: Taiwanese Solar Companies M ain Taiw an. there has been a distinc shift in manufacturing toward China. Greece. A large part of this is concentrated in polysilicon production plants. Since 2004. have now become net importers. A large number of these companies are still to reach volume production but already have contracts lined up for their expected future production. China and Japan are major exporters of cells while Europe and the U. Barclays Capital research Figure 381:Cell Manufacturing Japan and Europe have been the traditional manufacturing centers for the solar industry. These have also been the major demand centers with Europe being the largest market. Although China is not a major demand center.S. This trend is expected to continue in the near future. The solar industries in Germany and the southern European markets of Spain. companies are moving toward lower cost centers for their manufacturing needs China and Taiwan have been seen as the major manufacturing hub for the world.

requires a considerable investment. This was a considerable increase from the 33% in 2006. the extension of the electricity grid. Among crystalline silicon.24 0.13 0.18 0. Off-grid applications are therefore often the most suitable option to supply electricity in dispersed communities or those at great distances from the grid.3 0. the growth in both multi-crystalline silicon and mono-crystalline silicon was equivalent.25 0. particularly in remote locations.13 0.14 0. 2009 .Solar Energy Handbook Figure 382: Solar Cell Growth Traditionally.09 0.08 0.08 0.15 0.2 0. The fuel costs for diesel generators are high. Barclays Capital research Figure 383: Competitiveness of Off-Grid Applications Sunshine Hours 900 1000 1200 1300 1400 1400 1400 1400 1600 1800 1800 2 007 0. absence of fuel expenses. Barclays Capital research 344 May 01.1 0.22 0. PV is generally competing with diesel generators or the potential extension of the public electricity grid.22 Euros/Watt 2010 2020 2030 0. solar cells have been primarily made from crystalline silicon.1 0.22 0.22 0.28 0.11 0. although lifetime operating costs are much lower for off-grid PV than for other energy sources.07 0.28 0.33 0.07 0.17 0.07 Berlin Paris Washington Hong Kong Sydney Buenos Aires Bombay Madrid Bangkok Los Angeles Dubai Off-grid applications are mostly already cost competitive compared with the alternative options. The high investment costs of installing renewable energy systems are often inappropriately compared with those of conventional energy technologies. The recent shortage of silicon has also led to an exponential growth in solar cells made from thin films. This kind of lifecycle accounting is not regularly used as a basis for comparison.13 0.13 0.22 0. a combination of low operation and maintenance costs.39 0. Source: Solarbuzz.28 0.26 0.17 0. while solar energy’s ‘fuel’ is both free and inexhaustible. increased reliability and longer operating lifetimes are all factors which offset initial investment costs. However. The predominance of crystalline silicon though meant that the total solar cell growth in 2007 was 56%. In fact.22 0.08 0. the thin film segment grew by over 120% while the crystalline silicon segment grew by only about 50%.31 0. Source: EPIA.12 0.44 0.1 0.13 0. The growth in the thin film segment has been higher than the growth in the crystalline silicon solar cells.2 0.08 0. The other main alternative for rural electrification. In 2007.35 0. initial investment costs can still be a barrier for people with little disposable income.28 0.

solar water heating and space heating installations are concentrated in a few states and territories. Hawaii represents almost half of the solar hot water market. 2009 345 . High energy prices and good government policies have built the solar hot water market in Hawaii. In order to lower the cost and increase efficiency of CSP technologies. installation costs are lower in Hawaii than in most other locations in the United States because freezing is not a concern. In addition. The goal of this research is for more utility companies to consider CSP as an addition to their power plants. New policies under development will likely continue Hawaii’s status as a market leader for solar hot water. the states with the most installed capacity are different for solar hot water than for PV. EIA. Source: IREC. Barcla ys Capital research May 01. This research is applied to all CSP technologies. Barcla ys Capital research Figure 385: Solar Water Heating by State Like PV installations. EIA. However. Source: IREC. researchers are trying to identify and characterize novel fluids that possess physical and chemical properties needed to improve thermal storage. These researchers are also attempting to find new ways to use thermal technologies to store the energy that will be cheaper and more efficient than the current thermal storage systems. by lowering the price of solar thermal and increasing the storage period and efficiency of the energy source.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 384: Annual Installed Capacity for Solar Hot Water Systems The DOE and other organizations are currently researching new technologies for heat transfer fluids and thermal storage systems.

The Austrian government has also been active in promoting the use of solar energy. equivalent to 6. The new government in Australia is also expected to actively pursue the increased adoption of renewable sources of energy including solar. In 2007. Other 15% Biomass 1% Hydro 30% Wind 25% Solar 21% Landfill Gas 8% Source: Australian Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator. The Australian government has set itself a target of generating 45 billion mWh of additional electricity from renewable sources by 2020.8 billion kWh in 2007. The country’s share in the total electricity market has increased from 0. Barclays Capital research Figure 387: Austrian Electricity Market The Austrian electricity mix has witnessed a rapid increase in the adoption of solar and other forms of renewable energy such as geothermal and wind energy. Australia is also a leading market for solar hot water capacity and provides capital grants and rebates for installations. The share of renewable energy in the total mix has increased from 22% in 2000 to about 33% in 2007 (including hydro) Austria consumed 63.8M RECs.9% in 2002 to 1.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 386: Australian Electricity Market Australia has witnessed a rapid increase in the adoption of solar and other renewable sources of energy. 33% Solar. 67% Source: EPIA.4% in 2006. wind. making Austria a large exporter of solar components to the rest of Europe. Australia produced 6. Barclays Capital research 346 May 01. 2009 . Thermal.8 mWh. etc. The European Union has further accelerated the adoption of renewables by setting Austria a target of 34% renewables share by 2020.

etc. etc 8% Although a small part of the Greek electricity mix. The French electricity mix has seen a modest increase in the adoption of solar and other forms of renewable energy such as geothermal and wind energy. France utilized 544 billion kWh. The European Union has further accelerated the adoption of renewables by setting Denmark a target of 30% renewables share by 2020.4 billion kWh in 2007. Thermal 92% Source: Eurostat. Barclays Capital research Figure 390: Greek Electricity Market Solar. Denmark utilized 37.9% in 2000 to 19% in 2007. Thermal 81% Renewable Sources 19% Source: Eurostat. In 2007.1 billion kWh in 2007. The European Union has further accelerated the process by setting Greece a target of 18% renewables share by 2020. This should help accelerate the adoption of renewables in the electricity mix. Greece utilized 58. 12% C onventional Thermal. wind. 77% France has the second-largest electricity market in the European Union. Barclays Capital research May 01. The share of renewable energy in the total mix has increased from 5% in 2000 to about 8% including hydro in 2007. solar and other forms of renewable energy have witnessed a rapid increase in their adoption. 2009 347 .Solar Energy Handbook Figure 388: Denmark Electricity Market The Danish electricity mix has witnessed a high percentage of solar and other forms of renewable energy such as geothermal and wind energy. behind Germany. The share of renewable energy (including hydroelectric) has increased from about 7% in 2000 to 12% in 2007. along with a 2% reduction in total energy consumption by 2011. Source: Eurostat. Barclays Capital research Figure 389: French Electricity Market Solar. wind. The share of renewable energy in the total mix has increased from 10. France has been set a target of 23% renewables share by the European Union for the year 2020. The Danish government has been active in promoting the use of renewable energy and has set a target of maintaining renewable energy at around 20%. 11% N uclear.

The European Union has further accelerated the process by setting Italy a target of 17% renewables share by 2020. The EU has further accelerated the adoption of renewables by setting Portugal a target of 31% renewables share by 2020. 19% Conventional Thermal. The solar irradiance in Portugal is also among the highest in the European Union.7% in 2000 to 19% including hydro in 2007. wind. 32% Conventional Thermal. The European Union has further accelerated the process by setting Spain a target of 20% renewables share by 2020. The share of renewable energy in the total mix has increased significantly from 5. etc 16% Conventional Thermal 84% Source: Eurostat. Portugal’s total electricity usage in 2007 was 46. 63% Source: Eurostat. Spain’s total electricity consumed in 2007 was 296. 2009 . Barclays Capital research 348 May 01. wind. Solar. Barclays Capital research Figure 393: Spanish Electricity Market The Spanish electricity mix has witnessed a rapid increase in the adoption of solar and other forms of renewable energy such as geothermal and wind energy. 68% Source: Eurostat. Nuclear. Solar.9 billion kWh. etc. Barclays Capital research Figure 392: Portuguese Electric Market The Portuguese electricity mix has witnessed a rapid increase in the adoption of solar and other forms of renewable energy such as geothermal and wind energy. etc. aimed at increasing the renewable share.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 391: Italian Electricity Market The Italian electricity mix has witnessed a gradual increase in the adoption of solar and other forms of renewable energy such as geothermal and wind energy. wind. 18% Solar.1 billion kWh. The share of renewable energy in the total mix has increased from about 5 % in 2000 to more than 16% including Hydro in 2007. This increase has been aided by the policies of the Spanish government. The share of renewable energy in the total mix has more than doubled from 15% in 2000 to over 32% in 2007 including Hydro.

it generated only 0. The country has set a target of 5% energy consumption to be sourced from renewables and also plans to install 1. Source: RWE and Barclays Capital research May 01. 2009 349 . Although the share of renewables such as solar and geothermal has been increasing steadily. The current increase in commodities and. fossil fuels is expected to further increase electricity prices in Europe. Barclays Capital research Figure 395: Elec tricity Prices in Europe Elect ri city Pric es i n Eu ro pe (Eur ce nt /KWh) H1 2 007 Lat via Croat ia E ston ia Bu lgar ia Nor way P olan d F inlan d Lit huan ia Swede n Malt a Nethe rland s Hu ngar y Roman ia Czec h Repub lic S loven ia Belgium Un ited Kin gdom Slova kia Germ any I taly Cypru s 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Electricity prices in Europe are among the highest in the world A major reason for this is the dependence on imports by many countries for generating electricity. due to the attractive feed-in tariff incentive of the government. Solar is a large part of this. more particularly.3GW of PV capacity by 2011. The NPV of subsidies provided by South Korea is believed to be around US$11. which has been attempting to propagate the use of fossil fuels.13% of electricity in 2006. The government further provides assistance and support to the industry through joint R&D projects by the Korean Development Organization.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 394: South Korean Electricity Market South Koe ran Electricity Ma rke t (2006) = 382. has managed to keep its electricity prices stable over the last few years. imports a large part of its generation raw materials. This consistent increase in electricity prices is expected to bring grid parity for solar closer.90/W. Source: EIA. which has the highes cost of electricity in Europe. The lowest prices in Europe are currently in France due to its over dependence on nuclear power for generating electricity. Italy.8 billion kW h Hydroel ectri c 1% Nucl ear 37% Renewable Sources 0% Thermal 62% The South Korean market is dominated by thermal and nuclear electricity. Germany.

The average electricity bill of a three-person household in Germany has increased from EUR49. 20 15 July 201 5 Jan. Reserve capacity is the difference between the dependable capacity and the capacity required at peak demand. 202 0 July 2 020 The domestic generation capacity in Germany is abou 127GW. Barclays Capital research Figure 397: Germany Electricity Prices Ind ustri al El ectr ici ty Pri ces (1998 = 100) 1 23 1 20 1 00 104 95 85 69 73 95 64 19 98 19 99 200 0 2 00 1 2 00 2 2 003 20 04 20 05 200 6 2 00 7 Germany is one of the largest producers and consumers of electricity in Europe. which may not be adequate for the country. After falling considerably in 2000. Currently. Germany has an adequate reserve capacity. Taxes contribute 40. while the net electricity price for industrials has decreased by 3%. 20 10 July 2 010 Jan. Source: UCTE.95/month to EUR60. electricity prices in Germany have steadily increased from 2000 to 2007. This tightening of the reserve capacity is also true for most of Europe A major result of this has been the increase in spot electricity prices and the spikes often seen in the electricity trading markets. levies. Electricity prices also include taxes. This has been a major componen of the electricity price rise.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 396: German Reserve Capacity Reserve Capaci ty in GW 21 22 18 18 14 11 11 11 9 9 5% = Minimum Rese rve Capaci ty Jan . Source: RWE. taxes have increased by 1. From 1998. but this is expected to tighten. and fees imposed by the government. The minimum reserve capacity is generally 5% of the total capacity. the effect of subsidies for renewables makes up a small part of the monthly electricity outlay.20/month.250% causing a combined increase in electricity prices of 20%. 20 13 Jul 2 013 Jan . 20 08 Jul 2 00 8 Jan . Barclays Capital research 350 May 01. 2009 . Germany is expected to have a reserve margin capacity slightly greater than 5%.7% of this electricity bill However. By July 2020. according to the Union for the Coordination of Transmission of Electricity (UCTE).

S. Currently. The capacity margin in most of the other regions is expected to fall during this time. Major concerns are the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and the Midwest Reliability Organization (MRO). The United States is divided into regions for electricity purposes. respectively.0% and 7. Reserve capacity is the difference between the dependable capacity and the capacity required at peak demand. whose margins are expected to be 5. each of these regions has an adequate reserve capacity.3%. The minimum reserve capacity is generally 5% of the total. which is expected to increase to 27.1% by 2011. with the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC) having the maximum margin of 18. generation capacity is about 920GW.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 398: Solar Energy and Peak Power Electricity Market We believe solar has the potential to address “peak power electricity generation” and achieve grid parity with peak electricity prices in a number of markets. Solar energy production is also the highes during the same time (as sun intensity is the highest). Barclays Capital research Figure 399: United States Reserve Capacity 25 % 2 1% 20 % 18 % 15 % 15 % 11% 10 % 8% 1 4% 11% 1 0% 8% 14% 14 % 13 % 13 %1 3% 15 % Ca pacity Ma rgin(%) 2 1% 21 % 1 5% 5% 0% E RCO T FRCC MRO NP CC Reliabili y irst t F SE RC SPP WE CC W hole US 2 00 7 2 00 8 U. in 2011 according to the EIA. The marginal cost of electricity is highest during the middle of the day as electricity usage is highest. Peak power generation represents approximately 30% of global electricity generation. units) Solar Energy F eed-in Ener gy Electricity consumption of building Electricity supplied by Utilit Electricity supplied by Utilit Low Tariff High Tariff Low Tariff Source: Q-cells AG. 2009 351 .5%. Electrical Energy (arb. Source: EIA and Barclays Capital research May 01.

the production process of such multilayer structure is highly complex. An increase in cel efficiencies along with a decrease in wafer thickness has led to a rapid decrease in the costs of solar cells and a reduced Energy Payback Time for grid-connected PV. A high level of expertise is required for successful BIPV systems planning. In such case. typically replacing conventiona building materials. more efficient in light-weight/low-angle applications. 2009 .0% 17.0% 16. Cell efficiency is expected to continue rising.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 400: Building-Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV) Glass EVA/PVB foil Solar Cells EVA/PVB foil Glass BIPV is a term for the design and integration of PV technology into the building envelope.0% 15. and in general.5% Cell efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of a solar cell in converting the incident solar energy on it into electricity Average cell efficiencies have increased over time due to the R&D efforts of various solar companies. The main disadvantages are that the world’s supply of indium is limited. but also to civil and PV engineering. Barclays Capital research Figure 402: CIGS Solar Technology CIGS is the light-absorbing layer in the case of this thin-film technology.5% 15 .5% 16. Source: Barclays Capital research Figure 401: Cell Efficiencies for Crystalline Cells Ave ra ge Ce ll Efficie ncies for Crysta lline Cells 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 14. with Crystalline Cz efficiency expected to reach 20% by 2010 and 22% by 2020 Crystalline Mz efficiency is expected to reach 18% by 2010 and 20% by 2020. such as crystalline and microperforated amorphous transparent modules. a part of natural light is transferred into the building through the modules. Façade-integrated PV systems could consist of different transparent module types. Source: Image provided courtesy of BP Solar 352 May 01. and Ribbon-sheet efficiency is expected to reach 17% by 2010 and 19% by 2020.5%. The main advantages of this technology are lower manufacturing costs. This technology can achieve lab efficiencies of 19. Source: EPIA.5% 17. not only in regard to architecture.

Reduction in annual globa carbon emissions are expected to reach 1 billion tonnes by 2030. 1 . Barclays Capital research Figure 405: CO 2 Emission Reduction Due to Solar Expect ed Annual CO2 Savi ngs (M il li onTonnes) 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 2030 An important advantage of solar PV systems is that there are no carbon dioxide emissions during their operation.75 % per yea r According to the Department of Energy.5% and future goal is to reach 18%–20% efficiency by 2015.70 $/W 2 $/W 7 –8 ¢/kW h 95 % 0 .5% efficiency currently achieved by companies such as First Solar Presently the champion device efficiency is 16. The cumulative reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 is expected to reach nearly 6. Cadmium Telluride technology has the potential to achieve 13% module efficiency in commercial scale compared with approximately 10. Barclays Capital research Figure 404: Roadmap for CIGS Technology DO E Goals for CIGS PV Parame ter Co mmer cial mod ule effic ienc y Ch ampion de vice efficie ncy Modu le c ost $ /W in stalle d sys tem co st Re liability goa l co mmer cial p ro duc t Ov era ll pr oce ss yie ld Pre sent St at us (2 007 ) 5%–1 1% Not esta blish ed estimate d < 2 $ /W 5–1 2 $ /W 0% to 6% a nnu al d eg rad atio n in p ilot arr ays Not availa ble Fut ure Goal ( 20 15) 1 0%–1 5% 19 . They believe that this cost could come down to around $1 per Wat by 2015. The DOE has set a goal of increasing the efficiency in commercia modules to between 10% and 15% by 2015. Barclays Capital research May 01. 2009 353 . Current LCOE (assuming $4–$5/W installed system cost) is 18–22 c/kWh and the DOE roadmap suggests LCOE of 7–8 c/kWh is possible at installed system cost of $2/W. Source: EPIA. PV also does not involve any other polluting emissions in the form of exhaust fumes or noise.2% p er yea r Fut ure Goal ( 20 15) 13 % 1 8%–2 0% 0 .7 billion tonnes. The decommissioning of a system is also not problematic.5 0% 1.2 1 $ /W 4–5 $/ W 18– 22 ¢/k Wh 9 0% 1 . Source: Department of Energy. although there are indirect emissions during the other stages of the solar life cycle.50 % 2 1%–2 3% ~ 1 $ /W 3 $/W < 1% an nu al p ower loss for > 95 % Ne w ma nu fact urin g met hod s De velop ne w en cap sula tion sch emes a nd ap pro pria te Pil t Flexib le “ roll.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 403: Roadmap for Cadmium Telluride Technology DO E Goals for CdTe P V Parame ter Co mmer cial mod ule effic ienc y Ch ampion de vice efficie ncy Modu le c ost $ /W in stalle d sys tem co st L COE Ov era ll pr oce ss yie ld Id ent ify r eleva nt deg ra datio n mec han isms an d d evelo p a ppr opr iate ALTs fo r d evice an d mini.25 –3 μm CIG S a bso rb er thickn ess 3 0–4 0 μ m/ h < 1 μ m CIGS ab sor ber th ickne ss De pos t ion rat e a nd cell th ickn ess i According to the Department of Energy Commercial CIGS modules produce efficiency between 5% and 11%. Currently Champion device efficiency for CIGS modules are at 19.mo dule s Pre sent S at us (2 007 ) t > 9% 1 6. Source: Department of Energy. The DOE has estimated tha the cost of a CIGS based module is around $2 per watt.to.50% The DOE has a goal of increasing this level of efficiency to between 21% and 23% by 2015.roll” o man ufa ctu ring (in itially p ack age d ac celer ate d life te sting fo r fle xible a nd rig d modu les i a s a gla ss to gla ss la min ate) 5 μ m/ h.

the desert regions of India.05/kWh through advanced technologies. Because they are only used to concentrate the sun’s rays.000 2. Source: European Solar Thermal Association. Mediterranean countries. the Middle East. thereby reducing dependence on silicon and bringing down costs. The most promising areas are the southwestern United States. China. Pakistan. Africa. on smal areas of high-efficiency PV cells.500 2. the former Soviet Union. Solar thermal benefits from some attractive characteristics that could make it a potential significan contributor to future power generation.000 1. falling on the solar panels.000 50 0 Concentrating solar power technologies directly collect solar radiation to provide medium.15/kWh. While development of the technology suffered from lack of investment in the 1980s. Iran. and Australia. which is expected to reduce to $0. Source: Barclays Capital research Figure 407: Concentrating Solar Thermal Concentrating Sola r Thermal Demand Outlook Insta lled (MW) US Spa in Mid dle East C hina R est of the World 42 0 10 0 0 0 Under Cons truc tion (MW) Under Dev elopment (MW) 0 27 0 60 0 0 5. Barclays Capita l research 354 May 01.10–$0.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 406: Concentrated Photovoltaic Technology (CPV) Sunl igh t Sun lig ht Secon dary M irro r Op tica l Ro d Hi gh Efficien cy M uil ti Ju ncti on Cell Conventional Photovoltaic technology is constrained by high costs and low efficiency. CPV attempts to overcome these by concentrating the sunlight. the technology has progressed and it also benefits from an attractive cost of energy at approximately $0. Solar thermal also overcomes another constrain as it is able to be scaled up to deliver significant amounts of power generation. 2009 . the panels can be made of materials such as steel and glass. The panels can be designed to track the sun throughout the day.to high-temperature heat that is used to operate a conventional power cycle through a steam or gas turbine. thus increasing their efficiency.

MTR REDUCTION Ec onomies of Scale Competition Wafer P rice Reduction Wafer Thickness Reduction Automation Next Gener ation Technologies WATT/ SQ.5%. should lead to better products and cheaper solar power. along with the reduction in wafer thickness used. As wafer prices decline. Barclays Capital research Figure 409: Cost per Watt Reduction Process COST COST WATT = SQ. The manufacturing costs can be effectively reduced by companies achieving economies of scale in their manufacturing operations Competition among the established players and the entry of new companies is also expected to lead to a reduction in the costs. An increase in research in the field. An increase in the level of automation in the manufacturing process will bring down recurring labor costs. which has an efficiency of 6%–7% under standard testing conditions. it is expected to increase its market share. Source: Barclays Capital research May 01. Continued improvement in cell efficiency through research is expected to improve the watt/m2. this. is expected to be a cost advantage for companies. Source: EPIA. This is viewed as a major reason for the predominance of the crystalline technology in producing solar cells.17 % Conversion efficiency is the ability of a solar cell to convert the incident radiation into electricity. MTR COST/ SQ. 2009 355 . manufacturing costs are also expected to move lower.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 408: Conversion Efficiencies of Major Solar Technologies 18 % 16 % 14 % 12 % 10 % 8% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Amor ph ou s Silico n Mic ro cry sta llin e Amo r ph ou s Te chn ol og y Ca dmiu m Tell ur ide CIS Mul ticr yst allin e Sillic on Mon oc rys ta lline Silic on 6 -7 % 8 -1 1% 10 -1 1 % 14 -1 5% 1 6. The major thin-film technologies are amorphous silicon. coupled with the developmen of next-generation technologies being brought to market. As the conversion efficiency of thin-film continues to increase. The conversion efficiency for crystalline silicon–based cells is currently more than that for thin film cells. MTR IMPROVEMENT Cell Efficiency Improvement The solar PV supply chain is focused on improving the cost of solar electricity by increasing watt/m2 (or cell efficiency) and decreasing cost/m2 (manufacturing costs). Microcrystalline Amorphous technology. MTR WATT SQ. causing the total cost/watt for solar to decrease. which is a combination of amorphous silicon and microcrystalline silicon has an efficiency of 8% with Cadmium Telluride recording 8%–11% and CIS recording 10%–11% under standard testing conditions SunPower’s conversion efficiency is 22.

m tr/yr inso lation a nd 75 % performa nce ratio fo r the system com pared to the mo dule Source: DoE. A dye sensitizer is used to absorb the light and create electron-hole pairs in a nanocrystalline TiO 2 semiconductor layer. 2009 . 80% ma xi mum rated p ower at end o f li fe ti me Note ab ove data assu mes 1.5 1. Source: Solarbuzz. Barclays Capital research Figure 412: Fluid Bed Technology Cost 140 120 70-120 kWh /kg 70-120 kWh/kg 100 80 60 Energy costs are a major factor in polysilicon deposition technologies.3 % 3 . and 2) continuous versus batch process. Barclays Capita l research 356 May 01. Cell Tec hnology Sing le-crystal si lico n N on-rib bon mu lti-crystal si lico n Ri bbo n multicrystal lin e si lico n Cadm ium tell urid e Total Ene rgy Ener gy Us ed to Produce Sy stem Gener ated by Syste m Compare d to Tota l Divide d by Amount of Ene rgy U sed to Ener gy Paybac k Gener ated Ene rgy 1 (%) Pr oduce Syste m 1 Time (yr ) 2. Efficiency and Renewable Energy. which draws energy out of the process and results in inefficiencies. Barclays Capital research Figure 411: Energy Payback Times Energy Payback Time (EPBT) is the length of deploymen required for a PV system to generate an amount of energy equa to the total energy that went into its production. Energy. and 3) manufacturing technology used to make PV cells.70 0 kWh /sq .0% 8 .Solar Energy Handbook Figure 410: Elec trochemical PV Cells Conducting glass TiO Injection E vs NHE (V) -0. Fluid Bed technology reduces this cost by approximately a factor of 10.7 1. 2) the amount of insolation that the system receives.7 % 10 12 16 27 1: Assu mes 30 yea r p erio d performa nce. These cells are considered to offer lower manufacturing costs in the future because of their simplicity and use of cheap materials.7 2. although they are faced with the challenge of scaling-up manufacturing and demonstrating continuous reliability.1 % 6 . This is sandwiched between a tin oxide coated glass sheet and a rear carbon contact layer.0 Dye Electrolyte Cathode h Maximum Voltage Red Ox Diffusion Interception Electrochemical solar cells have their active component in a liquid phase.5 0 0. with a glass or foil-backing sheet. The value of EPBT depends upon three factors: 1) conversion efficiency of the PV system.0 10. due to the following reasons: 1) elimination of traditional Siemens “cold wall” design. 10+ kWh/ kg 40 20 0 TCS based Siemens process Silane based Siem ens process Silane based FBR process Source: REC. which efficiently utilizes input energy.2 1.

which have been increasingly viewed as a direc contributor to weather changes. The switch to renewable sources of energy is expected to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases worldwide. Compared to renewable sources. 2009 357 . layering is conducted through PECVD process). Source: Kyocera. Multi-crystalline silicon creates 37gms/kWh of CO 2-equivalent emissions and cadmium telluride creates nearly 18gms/kWh of CO 2-equivalen emissions. 3) diffusion. This is comparable to other renewable sources such as biomass (45gms/kWh) and wind (11gms/kWh). the major chemical used is silicon nitride or titanium dioxide. Source: EPIA and Barclays Capital research Figure 414: Multi-Crystalline Solar Cell Manufacturing Process Raw Mat erial Ca n sti g P-type sil icon ma ss C utting-Slicing Wa fer Sl icin g Polysil icon Jun ction formation P-N Fusio n Su ce Treatment rfa surfa etching ce Multicrysta line Si l P-typ w e afer Back si d e P-layer An ti-refl e o cti n Anti-re flection coatin g Electro forma de tion front (-) b ack(-) Sold Immersi o er n Solder So lder Typically. 5) screen printing (grid-like metal contact is screen-printed on front surface using silver paste and on rear side using Al paste). with coa (900gms/kWh) and oil (850gms/kWh) leading the pack. 2) cleaning. 4) anti-reflective coating (to avoid energy losses.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 413: Greenhouse Gas Emissions G re enhous e Gas Emis s ions (G ms pe r k Wh of CO2 E quiva le nt) Coal 9 00 Ol i 85 0 Gas Combine d. five major manufacturing steps are involved: 1) etching and polishing (removing an unusable layer after the wire-sawing process).cr ys taline silico n Cad mium tellur ide (t hin film) 37 18 A major concern with using fossil fuels to generate electricity is the emissions of greenhouse gases. fossil fuels generate considerable higher amounts of CO 2 equivalents. These fuels generate a considerable amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.cy cle 4 00 B mas s io 45 Multi. Barclays Capital research May 01.

It was developed in the 1950s and currently produces a higher purity of material. Source: Bécancour Silicon a nd Barclays Capita l research 358 May 01. increasing its dia meter When the rods reach the required size. silicon must be refined to a purity of 99. The rods are contained in a cooled bell jar. This is generally less pure than traditional silicon and is thus cheaper. The conversion efficiencies of the cell are also lower than those made from traditional polysilicon. Silane or trichlorosilane (TCS) gas is passed over these rods. About 70% of the new start-ups will use the Siemens process. high temperature polysilicon rods are put in a thermal decomposition furnace. 2009 . Barclays Capital research Figure 416: Silicon Impu rity Con te nt Se mic onduc tor Grade Solar Grade High Purit y Grade Me ta llurgic al Grade ppmw 0 4 10 5 10 2 10 15 20 1 25 30 -2 35 10 40 -4 45 10 Silicon is the second most abundant element in the earth’s crust The purity of the silicon determines its use for further applications. silicon has to be “doped” with other elements to make in n-type or p-type The current shortage of polysilicon has led a few companies to start production of metallurgical-grade silicon. Source: Asia Silicon. which is used to form wafers.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 415: Siemens Reactor Process Sand MG-Si (1-2N's) TCS Silane Siemens Process S iemens Process Poly-Si Rods (7-11N's) Note: 7N (or 7 nines ) is 99.9999%. Siemens’ process was used in nearly 90% of the polysilicon produced in 2006. they are extracted. In this process. The current production of metallurgical silicon is being met with considerable demand Metallurgical silicon is currently being mixed with normal silicon.99999% pure. although some companies have now started using it directly to create modules. To create an effective PV cell. The silicon in the gas is deposited on the rods evenly . To be used in solar cells. Siemens’ reactor process is the most widely used for producing polysilicon. The end product is in the form of chunks or rods of polysilicon.

The Fluidized Bed Reactor process is gaining considerable market share over the Siemens process despite being relatively new and technically challenging. The most common production method for silicon is the Siemens Reactor process. The batteries are a storage vessel for the direc current produced from the modules. A major reason for this is that the cost of production of polysilicon is expected to be less than half that from the Siemens process. the technology produces nearly 90% of the polysilicon currently produced.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 417: Silicon Manufacturing Processes Manu factu ing Process Share r 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2006A 2007E Si emens Reactor 2008E 2009E Others 2010E Fluidized B ed Reac tor Silicon is one of the most important raw materials in the solar chain. There are three major types of batteries: Flooded Lead Acid batteries are the most used due to their low cost and long life but also require regular maintenance. Initially developed in 1950. Source: Photon Consulting. The Gelled Electrolyte Sealed batteries have been losing ground since the arrival of the AGM battery due to their longer charging times. as all other components rely on it for operating. The market share of Siemens is expected to decline over the next few years despite most new Chinese entrants using it due to the ease of finding access to equipment and technologica knowledge. Source: Barclays Capital research May 01. The Absorbed Glass Mat Sealed (AGM) batteries have been increasing market share with reducing prices and are mainly preferred by commercial installations. 2009 359 . A lead acid battery is designed to absorb and generate electricity by a reversible electrochemical reaction. Barclays Capital research Figure 418: Solar Batteries Batteries are a key component in a grid-tie with backup or a standalone system.

The metallurgical silicon is first melted in a furnace to remove volatile impurities. The inverter market is estimated to grow at a CAGR of 38% in 2007–2010.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 419: Solar Grade Silicon Production Process As-received. Xantrex Technology. Although a number of companies have their patented processes. This leaves behind the solar grade silicon. 2009 . and PV Powered.99% pure. inverters are now highly efficient (85%–-95%) and reliable. the sequence of steps needed remains essentially similar. The major manufacturers of inverters worldwide are SMA Technologies AG. Further refining is achieved by introducing reactive gases and through the addition of slag-forming agents. PHO TOVOL TAIC (PV) PANEL DC In AC Ou t UT ILITY G RID INVERT ER HOME ELECTRIC PANEL UT ILI TY MET ER Source: Energy Smart Systems. with growth being driven by commercia applications. and reduction in the boron and phosphorous content in the metal. The two main types of inverters are the modified sine and the sine wave inverter. with the rest being separated from the silicon through directional solidification. Directional Solidification Solar Grade Silicon Source: Barclays Capital research Figure 420: Solar Invertors The inverter is a basic component of PV systems and converts DC power from the PV array into high-voltage AC power Although inefficient and unreliable in the past. Barclays Capital research 360 May 01. Most of the impurities are thus removed. The conversion of metallurgical silicon to solar-grade silicon requires the remova of a number of metallic impurities. commercially available MG Silicon Modified HEM Furnace Melting Slag Refining Gases and Moisture Solar-grade silicon is not as pure as polysilicon. which is more than 99.

5% conversion efficiency. or Copper Indium Gallium Di-Selenide. however. offers higher conversion efficiency potential. 2009 361 . It is expected that as the conversion efficiencies of thin-film modules improve in the near future. the area difference betw een these technologies and silicon-based technologies would decrease rapidly. Micromorph is a micro-crystalline silicon/amorphous silicon dual-junction solar PV cell structure and is also known as tandem junction or dual junction. the area needed to generate a kWp of electricity using a silicon based module is 7–8 m2. The area required for a thin-film module can be between 10–15 m2. depending on the technology.5%. NanoSolar. The area required to generate electricity from solar panels often plays a big role in deciding the type of panel to use. CdTe 16% Source: Q-cells AG Micromorph CIGS 12% 19% May 01. silicon-based modules have a higher conversion efficiency than thin-film–based modules Currently. Miasole. First Solar is the company successfully using CdTe technology in high-volume manufacturing and achieving 10. SunPower has a conversion efficiency of 22. and Solyndra are some CIGS companies.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 421: Solar Module Technologies 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Amor ph ou s S ilico n Micr o cr ys talline Amor ph ou s Te ch no log y Ca dmiu m Tellur ide CIS Multic ry st alline Silc on i Mo no cr ys ta lin e Silicon ~8 ~7 12 11 10 15 Are a n eed ed pe r kW p (squa re meter) The area needed to generate solar electricity depends on the conversion efficiencies of the solar modules. On average. Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) offers the potential of 16% conversion efficiencies at the cel level. this technology has not been proven in volume production. Source: EPIA and Barclays Capital research Figure 422: Thin-Film Conversion Efficiencies Potential CIGS. The conversion efficiency largely depends on the type of technology used to create the modules.

0 % .5 8 7. This had caused the spot price of silicon to reach over $450/kg in 2008 as most of the additional supply was absorbed by the solar industry. 9% ROW. 18% 2007 2010 The solar market across the world has been constrained due to the non-availability of silicon. recording an efficiency of 10. Wafer thickness is expected to fall to 150 microns in 2010 from current levels of 180 microns (2007). Individual companies are also playing an active part in this. Barclays Capital research 362 May 01. These new developments are expected to make China the world’s largest silicon producer taking this spot from the U. and CIGS-based technologies have efficiencies of up to 11%. 36% USA . Barclays Capital research Figure 425: Silicon Feedstock Market Re gional Dis tribution of Silicon Fe eds k Ma nufa ctur ing Ca pa city toc R OW. 13% g/Wp USA .0 0% CI S G Se > 10.Si 5. This has also reduced the energy payback time for PV systems.S. 8% E uro pe.6. The ability to produce thinner wafers has led to the reduction of silicon consumption. This supply/demand mismatch was also affected as most of the silicon prior to 2007 was absorbed by the semiconductor industry. The gap in supply demand also saw a number of large entrenched manufacturers announce expansion plans as a number of new startups came up in China. 5% Thin-film technologies traditionally have had a lower conversion efficiency than silicon-based modules. With the recent improvements in technology. 2009 . The silicon-free technologies have comparatively higher panel efficiencies Cadmium telluride (CdTe)-based modules. 40% C hina . the low-silicon-based technologies such as amorphous silicon (a-Si) and crystalline silicon on glass (CSG) technologies have the lowest panel efficiencies.5 9 6 170 160 150 3 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 201 0 300 300 µm 200 100 0 240 200 180 Silicon is a major raw material for the solar industry.5 gm/Wp by 2010 from 9 gm/Wp in 2007.6%.0% .0 % a.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 423: Thin-Film Panel Efficiencies Thin -Fi l m Pa nel Effi cie nci es CI S G upt o 1 1. This reduction in thickness is also expected to reduce consumption to 7. have panel efficiencies of 7%–9%. on average.0% C SG 6 .0 % .7. with First Solar. which produces CdTe panels. 0% C Te d 7. Source: EPIA. 16% Japan. 23% Japan. Source: Solarbuzz. 17% Europe. Of the major thin-film technologies.9 . thin-film panel efficiencies are bridging the gap with silicon-based modules. 20% Chi na . Source: aleo solar and Barclays Capital research Figure 424: Wafer Thickness and Silicon Usage Devel opment of Silico n Usage and Wa fer Thic kness 400 12 15 11 10 12 9 8.

indium ga llium .00 $ 2. Organic and dye sensitized technologies are currently being seen as a source for future growth in the industry. Kaneka and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.1% 1 6. The process is also being used for the development of thin-film photovoltaic process equipment.5% C ur rent Mar ket Price for Pane ($/Wpe ak) $ 4. continued research led to the development of thin film technologies such as Cadmium Telluride (CdTe). Although early work happened primarily on silicon based cells.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 426: Solar Industry Technologies B est R epor ted Cell Efficie nc y Bulk Silic on Thin Film Cadmium-telluride (CdTe ) Copper .diselenide (CIGS) Conc entrating PV (CPV) Or ga nic and dye -sensitized 2 4. The major thin film technologies include Cadmium Telluride (CdTe). Source: NanoGram Corporation. 2009 363 .20 $ 3. The LRD process deposits extremely uniform amorphous and microcrystalline silicon films at a significantly fast deposition rate. Barclays Capital research May 01.1 4 0. The leading thin film manufacturers include First Solar.9% $ 5.7% 1 2. The Laser Reactive Deposition (LRD) process is thought to be faster than the conventional thin film PV CVD process. thin film technology has been growing at a faster rate than crystalline technologies primarily due to its small base and the demand supply gap in polysilicon. Barclays Capital research Figure 427: Laser Reactive Deposition The laser reactive deposition process is finding use in solar technologies.7% 1 1. CIGS and amorphous Silicon (a-Si) becoming viable The increase in raw material costs of silicon also contributed to increased focus on thin film technologies. Barclays Capital research Figure 428: Thin Film Manufacturers Lea ding Thin Film Manufacturer s 2007 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 First So lar 2006 Capacity United Solar 20 06 Production Kaneka 2007 Capacity Mitsubishi Heavy Ind ustries 2007 Productio n The two major technologies for producing solar cells are the crystalline silicon technology and the thin film technology.1% - - There has been considerable research in the solar industry over the last few decades.0 1 9.27 1 3. These 4 companies account for 77% of thin film PV production in 2007. The research mainly concentrated on improving the conversion efficiency of the various technologies that were currently in use and also discovering newer technologies for use.45 Are a pe r 1. First Solar (CdTe) is also one of the largest producers of solar panels in world. amorphous silicon (a-Si) and CIGS. United Solar.00 0-W ins tallation (m2) 7. Source: Solarbuzz. Over the last few years. The high uniform deposition is achieved as particle stream is highly uniform because of the uniformity of the laser reaction zone. Source: EE Times.3 1 8.8 1 2. The precursor flexibility allows the LRD process to create a wide range of complex film compositions.

Source: US Department of Energy. A small parabolic mirror is sometimes added atop the receiver to increase the focus of the sunlight. The other major Linear Concentrator System is the linear Fresnel reflector system. Flat or curved mirrors reflect sunlight onto a receiver tube placed above the mirrors. The resulting beam of concentrated sunlight is reflected onto a thermal receiver that collects heat from the sun. Source: US Department of Energy.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 429: Two Types of Linear Concentrator Systems The two main types of Linear Concentrator Systems are Parabolic trough systems and linear Fresnel reflector systems Parabolic Trough Systems make up the majority of the Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) systems in the United States. and then transferring it to the engine/generator system The engine/generator then takes the heat and converts it to electricity. In order to reflect the most sunlight possible. converting it to heat. gathers energy from the sun. the dish is mounted in a way that tracks the sun continuously throughout the day. The tube is connected to the mirror and the fluid—either a heat-transfer fluid or water/steam—flows through and out of the field of solar mirrors to where it is used to create steam. The steam then spins a turbine in order to power a generator. 2009 . Barclays Capital research Figure 430: Dish/Engine Systems Another form of CSP system is the Dish/Engine System. A parabolic dish of mirrors directs and concentrates sunlight onto a central engine that produces electricity. In the Parabolic Trough System the receiver tube is positioned along the focal line of each parabola-shaped reflector. The main dish (otherwise known as a Solar Concentrator). Barclays Capital research 364 May 01. The power conversion unit is made up of the thermal receiver and the engine/generator. . The thermal receiver connects the dish to the engine/generator by absorbing the energy.

creating heat that is then used to generate electricity. CA Kramer Junction. CA Kramer Junction. A number of large flat mirrors.8 Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 431: Power Tower System One of the three types of Concentrating Solar Power Systems is the Power Tower System. focus sunlight onto a receiver which is placed on the top of a tower. AZ Harper Lake. Source: US Department of Energy. the sun's rays are reflected onto a receiver. the thermal energy can be stored for later use. but if this medium is either oil or molten salt. By utilizing Thermal energy storage. Parabolic Trough Power Plants Plant Name Nevada Solar One APS Saguaro SEGS IX SEGS VIII SEGS VI SEGS VII SEGS V SEGS III SEGS IV SEGS II SEGS I Locat ion Boulder City. and system prices are expected to continue to fall making it a viable longer term CSP technology. Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. CA Daggett. CA Kramer Junction. Barclays Capital Research One of the biggest issues preventing the current widespread use of Solar Energy is how to utilize solar energy when the sun is blocked by clouds or at night. NV T ucson. 2009 365 . The receiver contains a heat transfer fluid which generates steam used by a turbine generator to produce electricity. In a CSP system. CA Daggett. CA Harper Lake. CA Kramer Junction. Barclays Capital research Figure 432: U.S. CA Kramer Junction. Bar clays Capital research May 01. All CSP systems contain a hea transfer medium. known as heliostats. The ability to have a solar energy system that can be used during cloudy periods and at night makes it much more competitive with other forms of electricity. Power towers have very high sola r-to-electrica conversion efficiency. CA First Year of Operation Net Output (MW) 2 007 64 2 006 1 1 991 80 1 990 80 1 989 30 1 989 30 1 988 30 1 987 30 1 987 30 1 986 30 1 985 13. solar systems are able to harness the power of Solar Energy even when the sun is not visible.

except different fluids are used as the heat-transfer and storage fluids. Barclays Capita l research Figure 434: Single Tank Thermocline System 0 35 -5 40 45 50 55 60 65 -1 0 -1 5 -2 0 -2 5 Tempera ture (F) The single Tank Thermocline System stores thermal energy in a solid medium. it is released into the warm section. US Department of Energy. The tank is split into two regions. a portion of the medium a a hot temperature. The system consists of two tanks—one at high temperature and the other at low temperature. This creates steam which generates electricity. However unlike the Two Tank System. When this happens the thermocline moves downward and creates more thermal energy. the medium is stored in a single system. The Solar Energy heats the water and then flows through to the high temperature tank where it is stored. and the other at a cold termperature. The high temperature fluid flows into the top of the thermocline and exits the bottom at a colder temperature. fluid from the high-temperature tank flows through a hea exchanger. where it generates steam which gets converted into electricity. When the colder energy moves into the thermocline. Barclays Capital research 366 De pth of Tank . 2009 . Another system called the Two-Tank Indirect System functions similarly. separated by a thermocline or temperature gradient. Fluid from the low-temperature tank flows through the solar collector or receiver. Source: US Department of Energy.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 433: Thermal Storage Systems.Two Tank Direct System The Two-Tank Direct System is a form of CSP system that stores energy in the same fluid used to collect it. The indirect system is only used where the heat-transfer fluid is too expensive or cannot be used. FLAGSOL. Source: Federal Energy Management Program. Once the water is stored in the high temperature tank. Ft May 01. and moves the thermocline upward. The fluid exits the heat exchanger at the low temperature and returns to the low-temperature tank.

and Biofuels made up approximately 85% of total investment in renewable energy technology. This was an increase from 38% of new investment in renewables in 2006 Solar was next with 24%. and off-grid solar PV. Together. or $50. geotherma heating.7bn in 2007. solar hot water. or $28.2 billion.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 435: Global Renewable Energy Capacity Growth Global renewable energy capacity grew at an annual rate of 15%–30% for many technologies during the five-year period of 2002–06. Solar. Wind accounted for 43% of alternative energy investment in 2007. Biofuels also grew rapidly during the period.2 billion. Barclays Capital research May 01. Wind. The growth of grid-connected solar PV eclipsed all other technologies. 2009 367 . Source: REN21. or $20 billion. at a 40% annual average for biodiesel and 15% for ethanol. Barclays Capital research Figure 436: Renewable Energy Investment Global New Investm ent by Technology. Solar 24% Source: REN21. followed by biofuels at 17%. global growth rates for fossil fuels were 2%–4% in recent years. In comparison. 2007 Efficiency 2% Biomass & Wate 9% Other Renew 3% Other Low Carbon 2% Biofuels 17% Wind 43% New investment in alternative energy technologies was $117. including wind power. with a 60% annua average growth rate for the period.

many states have begun requiring electricity companies to obtain a percentage of their supply from renewable energy sources such as Wind and Solar. installations. the United States’ dominance in the wind power market began to shift during the 1990s. equal to 90% of global installations at the time. In 2006.S. This demand for wind energy continued through the 1980s. with California installing 1. In order to change this trend and become an important player in wind generation again.2GW of wind power by 1986. when the high price of oil created the demand for new sources of electricity. By 2000.000MW of installed wind power compared with only 2. 2009 .Solar Energy Handbook Figure 437: A Brief History of the U. wind industry began in the 1970s in California. Wind Industry The U. Source: US Department of Energy. Europe had more than 12. These Renewable Portfolio Standards have been adopted by a number of states. However.500MW of U. Barclays Capital research 368 May 01. Energy Efficiency and Renewab le Energy. reestablishing the United States as a player in wind power generation.S. the United States retained its leadership of wind development in 2006 and is likely to remain a major player in the wind market due to the large wind resources the country possesses.S.

with corresponding power outputs of about 3 MW to 5 MW.6 megawatts (MW) of electrical power. 2009 369 . Barclays Capital research May 01. A turbine can capture only a portion of this cubic increase in energy. because power above the level for which the electrical system has been designed.52 m/s–13.36 m/s and reach maximum power output at about 12. though. Turbine power output is controlled by rotating the blades around their long axis to change the angle of attack with respect to the relative wind as the blades spin around the rotor hub. a turbine will start producing power in winds of about 5.35 m/s. Many turbine designers do not expect the rotors of land-based turbines to become much larger than about 100 m in diameter. The amount of energy in the wind available for extraction by the turbine increases with the third power of wind speed. The turbine will pitch or feather the blades to stop power production and rotation at about 22. Generally. Source: US Department of Energy. Energy Efficiency and Renewab le Energy. a 10% increase in wind speed creates a 33% increase in available energy. thus.41 m/s. is allowed to pass through the rotor.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 438: Today’s Modern Wind Turbine Today. Typically installed in arrays of 30 to 150 machines. This is called controlling the blade pitch. the average turbine installed in the United States in 2006 can produce approximately 1. wind turbines have three bladed rotors with diameters of 70m to 80m mounted on top of a tower which is 60 to 80 meters high. referred to as the rated power.

26 of the 28 states could supply 20% of electricity requirements through wind turbines. Barclays Capita l research 370 Pa c May 01. and therefore its mass and cost. Source: US Department of Energy. there are economic and logistical constraints to this continued growth to larger sizes The primary argument for limiting the size of wind turbines is based on the square-cube law. US Department of Energy. the cost for a larger turbine will grow faster than the resulting energy outpu revenue. EIA. In the United States. making scaling a losing economic game. In other words.) Although the increase in turbine height is a major reason for the increase in capacity factor over time. co nt ig En g At la n ti g th th A US Ne w Pa c if ic es tS ou No n M id So u ific Source: NREL. Barclays Capital research Figure 440: Offshore Wind Technology US Ele ctric ity Rat es by Region . 2009 W Ea st No rth dle Co . only six have enough wind resources to meet the required electricity through on shore wind turbines However. This long-term drive to develop larger turbines is a direct result of the desire to improve energy capture by accessing the stronger winds at higher elevations. every five years the size has grown along the linear curve and has achieved reductions in life-cycle cost of energy (COE). However. average wind turbine ratings have grown almost linearly. This law roughly states that as a wind turbine rotor grows in size. Experts have continuously stated that wind turbines will not be able to grow any bigger than they currently are.200 MW are currently under operation in Europe. (The increase in wind speed with elevation is referred to as wind shear. nine offshore project proposals in state and federal waters are in various stages of development. at some size.2 00 8 YTD (Through Se pt ember) . Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. A number of states could currently supply 100% of their electricity through wind turbines Twenty-six offshore wind projects with an installed capacity of roughly 1. increases as the cube of the diameter. These 28 states have shown to use up 78% of the nation’s energy and are home to some of the highest electricity prices in the United States. In the United States. Of these 28 states.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 439: Size of Wind Turbines Throughout the past 20 years. while the volume of material. 28 of the 48 contiguous states touch coastline in some part.(Ce nts/ KwH) 25 Costa l St ate s 20 Non Costa l St ate s 15 10 5 0 tr al M ou Ea nt st ai n So ut h Ce W nt es ra tN l or th Ce nt ra l us la n d nt ic uo tra l ti c Ce n tla n To uo ta l us Ce n Offshore wind technology is a relatively new technology with great potential in the United States. if offshore wind potential was included in the wind resource mix. its energy output increases as the rotor swept area (the diameter squared).

Barclays Capital research May 01. and sulfur emitted. This turbine drives an attached generator which produces electricity. EIA. these amounts are insignificant as compared to traditional.350 2. Steam and Binary plants. Bar clays Capital research Figure 442: Geothermal Steam Plants Geothermal Steam Plants use very hot (more than 300° F) steam and hot water resources. or the very hot. Energy produced from a Geothermal Steam plant currently costs about 4-6 cents per kWh. only making up 8% of renewable energy used in the United States in 2007. US Department of Energy.150 2. Source: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2009 371 . The steam either comes directly from the resource. There are two types of geotherma power plants used today.300 MW worth of geothermal energy in 2007.050 2003 200 4 2005 2006 2 007 Geothermal energy has significant potential for producing electricity.250 2. fossil-fuel power plants. Source: NREL. The United States had the capacity to produce about 2.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 441: Geothermal Capacity in the United States United States Geotherma l Generation C apac ity 2. high-pressure water is depressurized to produce steam. Geothermal capacity is a small percentage of the United States renewable energy profile. About 8. While there are small amounts of carbon dioxide.100 2. nitric oxide.300 2. These plants use hot water to create steam or vapor which is used to turn a turbine.000 megawatts (MW) of geotherma electricity are currently produced around the world.200 2. The steam then turns a turbine which is connected to a generator used to produce electricity The only significant emission from these plants is steam.

The geothermal fluid is condensed and returned to the reservoir. The hot water is passed through a heat exchanger in conjunction with another fluid with a lower boiling point. nothing is emitted. Because these lower-temperature reservoirs are far more common. binary plants are the more prevalent. s Source: BCG. Source: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The remaining fluid is simply recycled through the heat exchanger. These resources generally range between 100 and 300 degrees Fahrenheit. which drives the generator. Energy produced by binary plants currently costs about 5 to 8 cents per kWh. Barclays Capital research Figure 444: Announced versus Realistic Power Plant Projects (by 2012) in Europe According to RWE. Because binary plants use a self-contained cycle. The second fluid vaporizes. only 60% of the announced power pl ant projec ts (by 2012) are realistic due to volatile gas prices and probl em to s ecure critical components s uch as gas turbines. which turns the turbines.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 443: Geothermal Binary Plant Binary plants use hot water resources. Barclays Capital research 372 May 01. but at a much lower temperature than those that are utilized by steam plants. 2009 . RWE. US Department of Energy.

RWE. Barcla ys Capital research May 01. CERA estimates a declining reserve margin. the electricity market would be short of around 26GW in 2010 and the EU 15 reserve margin would drop from 22% in 2006 to around 10% in 2010. Barclays Capital research Figure 446: EU 15 Reserve Margin Calculated by CERA (CERA expects capacity bottleneck in Europe as soon as 2009) 30% 24% 1 8% 12% 6% 0% Rerserve Margin Planning Reser ve Margin 15% 1995 2000 2005 2010 CERA definition: Reserve margin is the difference between dependable capacity and peak demand divided by peak demand. Source: CERA. If only these projects currently under construction are built. 2006. even after accounting for new projects.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 445: CO 2 Avoidance Costs Through Building New Power Plants Source: RWE. For the EU 15 as a whole. 2009 373 . CERA's forecast includes existing plants and new plants under construction. Dependable capacity is firm capacity at peak.

Barclays Capita l research Figure 448: Percentage of Electricity from Renewable Sources (including Hydroelectric) 80% 69% 66% 70% 60% 50% 40% 46% 30% 20% 10% 3% 0% Italy Belgium Bulgaria The Czec h Republic 19 % 25 % 19 % 1 1% 6% 1% Denmark Germany 1% Estonia Ireland Greece Spain France 0% Cyprus Latvia 2% Lithuania Luxemborg 11% 12% 7% 1% 0% Hungary Malta The Netherlands Austria 7% 1% Poland 30% 29% 29% 31% 9% 0% Portugal Romania Slovenia The Slovak Republic Finland Sweden 3% Note: The European Commission h as set in dividu al country targets for 20% renewable energy use by 2020. UCTE. EURPROG. Source: European Commission. 2009 . RWE.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 447: New Thermal Power Plant Capacity Requirements in Europe Source: BCG. Barclays Capital research United Kingdom 374 May 01.

35% 1) 3. States Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Targets 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% By 2012 By 2013 By 2010 By 2015 By 2019 By 2020 By 2021 By 2025 By 2022 Nevada Wis c onsin Rhode Island California Penns y lv ania New J ersey Vermont Connecticut Hawaii Was hington D. RWE. 2009 New Hampshire O regon Montana New Mexico Was hington Virginia North Carolina Minnes ota Delaware Colorado New York Mis souri 375 . 14% Electricity Tax.87.S. VDN. 2% Grid Fee/Metering/E nergy Data Management. Barclays Capital research Figure 450: U. VAT at 16 %. 2) Source: VDEW. January 2006. 4% Wholesale Price.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 449: Renewable Energy Ac t Accounts for About 3% of German Household Electricity Bills Sales and Marketing 0. 22% Value-added Tax. 10% Renew able Energy Ac t.500 kWh/ a. EIA. 10% Concess ion fee. Barclays Capital research May 01. 3% Combined Heat and Pow er Ac t.C Mary land Arizona Illinois Source: DSIRE.

Solar Energy Handbook Figure 451: Non Silicon Costs $2.1 0 $1.9 0 W afe r to cells $0.6 0 $0.3 0 $JASO CSIQ CSU N Q -Cells STP SOLF SPW R YGE TSL ESLR Source: Barclays Capital research Figure 452: US Utility Sector Potential from ITC Source: Sunpower.2 0 $0. 2009 . Barclays Capital research 376 May 01.4 0 $2.5 0 Wafer to mod ules Poly to mo dules $1.8 0 $1.

NREL.Solar Energy Handbook Figure 453: Global Private Inves tment by Solar Technology Source: New Energy Finance. 2009 377 . F ACC May 01.

...................................................... 21 Figure 17: Potential Solar Contribution to Carbon Emissions Reduction By 2012E. Consensus EPS Estimates...................................... 22 Figure 18: European Union Target Shares of Renewables by 2020.......... Solar Shipments............. 26 Figure 26: Solar Energy Investment Potential Growth Drivers........... 29 Figure 30: Potential Solar Demand Drivers....................................................................................... 30 Figure 32: Solar Market Development....... 30 Figure 31: Solar – Multistage Growth Cycle...................... 26 Figure 24: Solar Employees versus Market Cap.............................................................S............................... 27 Figure 27: Oil Forecasting Trends........... 25 Figure 22: Job Creation Potential of Various Electricity Generation Technologies.......................................... 24 Figure 20: Electricity-Generating Assets in Key Solar Markets .. 26 Figure 25: Oil Price and Government Incentives ........................................... 23 Figure 19: Percentage of U......................................... 20 Figure 15: GDP Growth versus Per Capita Electricity Consumption................ 36 Figure 37: Italy IRR Trends................ 15 Figure 12: Global Wind vs................................. 17 Figure 14: Potential Renewable Energy Investment Drivers................................... 9 Figure 5: 2009 EPS Estimate Reductions From Peak Levels.... 12 Figure 9: Suntech Power Estimate Revisions ................................................................................................... 35 Figure 36: Germany IRR Trends................................................................. 21 Figure 16: Reserve Period (Number of Years) of Traditional Energy Resources...................... 36 Figure 38: New Incentives Announced in 2008.......................... 25 Figure 23: Microsoft Employees versus Market Cap .... Mobile Subscribers Forecasting Trends..................... 33 Figure 35: Comparison of Solar IRRs versus Government Bond Yields..................... 13 Figure 10: Foreign Exchange Could Act As Potential Tailwind ........................... 32 Figure 34: Market Cap Creation by Solar Companies in Growth Phase 1 (Ending August 2008)..... Consumer Wallet Spent on Electricity...............................S............................................... 24 Figure 21: Interest Rate Environment Acts As a Tailwind for Solar Fundamentals.......................................... 9 Figure 6: Suntech Power Earnings Momentum... 2009 ..................................................... 31 Figure 33: Effect of Incentives in Major Markets on PV Shipments...S.... 28 Figure 28: U... 16 Figure 13: Global Solar Company Valuations........... 11 Figure 8: 2010 Gross Margin Scenario Analysis.............................. 14 Figure 11: System Pricing vs........................................................................................................................ 6 Figure 4: China versus U........................ Shipments Growth............................................................................... 28 Figure 29: Solar Subsidies Should Provide Significant Catalyst for Solar Demand ..................... 36 Figure 39: Incentives News by Region—2008–09................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3: Solar Module and Balance of System Pricing Trend....................................... 36 378 May 01.................................................. 5 Figure 2: Potential Solar Grid Parity Scenarios.........................................Solar Energy Handbook Table of Figures Figure 1: Rela tionship Between Solar System Price and Natural Gas Prices ...... 9 Figure 7: Quarterly Supply Demand Outlook.........

............................................................ 60 Figure 72: Cumulative Installed Capacity (2008).......................................... 42 Figure 51: 2009 German Incentive Program: Net Present Value Analysis for 1GW Shipments............................ 48 Figure 59: Commercial Solar Grid Parity Timeline.......................... 37 Figure 43: Deals by Country (2008–Jan.....................................S................................................ 53 Figure 65: Normalized Industry Profits Pool...................................................... 51 Figure 62: Conversion Efficiency and Cost Trends............................................................................... 45 Figure 55: Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE)—Combined Cycle Gas Plants versus Solar ........ 63 Figure 76: Solar Electricity Costs ($/kWh) in Key Regions.................................................. Polysilicon Manufacturers.................................................................................. 61 Figure 74: Solar Subsidy Demand Relationship .................................................................................. 61 Figure 73: New Solar PV Installations (2008).................................... 39 Figure 46: Total Subsidy Amount Allocated by Various Countries ............................... 43 Figure 52: 2009 Solar Electricity Scenarios (Germany)..... 64 May 01.................... 47 Figure 57: Household Electricity Price Trend and Projections In Key Solar Markets .. 54 Figure 66: ROIC Integrated Module Manufacturer – Current versus Normalized.... 48 Figure 58: Grid Parity in Several Markets Likely Before 2012..................... 49 Figure 60: Commercial Solar Grid Parity Timeline................................................ 2009)............. 55 Figure 67: ROIC Integrated Cell Manufacturer – Current vs.. Electricity Generation Mix ....................................................................................... 49 Figure 61: Silicon-Based Solar Industry Competitive Dynamics.............................................................................. 60 Figure 71: U.............................................. 2009 379 .............. 40 Figure 48: Comparison of Net Subsidy Burden to Health Care and Education Spending................................ 39 Figure 47: Net Present Value of “Gross” and “Net” Subsidies ... Normalized...... 55 Figure 68: Normalized ROIC: Thin Film.......................................................................... 41 Figure 49: Annual Solar Incentives in Germany (EUR Millions) ............. 46 Figure 56: Levelized Cost of Electricity Using Various Technologies (Total Electricity Cost).................................. 57 Figure 70: Global Electricity Generation Mix.............. 43 Figure 53: Solar System Price versus Natural Gas Price.................................................... 37 Figure 41: Deals by Month (2008–09).. 52 Figure 63: Solar Market Share versus Margins....... 37 Figure 44: Net Present Value of Subsidies in Select Solar Markets ($/W)........ 63 Figure 75: Costs of Various Sources of Energy ...................................... 38 Figure 45: Installations Used In Calculating Growth Phase 2 Subsidies.............................................................................. 56 Figure 69: Prepayments and Capex Breakdown............................................... 2009)................................... 37 Figure 42: Deals by Country ( in MW) 2008–Jan..................................................................................................................................................... 52 Figure 64: Solar Industry Competitive Analysis ........... 44 Figure 54: Grid Parity Timeline............Solar Energy Handbook Figure 40: Incentives News by Month (2008-–09)......................................... 42 Figure 50: Potential Increase in German Electricity Bills for Every 1GW Increase in PV Shipments (2009E).....................................

.... 103 Figure 110: Thin Film Equipment Landscape.................................................................... 2009 ......... 2008E...................................... 105 Figure 114: Solar Module Production Process Flow Chart. 2008.................. Supply.............................................. 99 Figure 106: EBITDA Return over Capital Investments.......................................................................................................................................................... 66 Figure 80: Comparison of Thin Film Technologies.............................................. and Demand........................................................................................ 90 Figure 99: Multi-Crystalline Solar Cell Manufacturing Process............................................. 106 Figure 115: Crystalline Cell Equipment Market Breakdown.................................................................................................................................. 104 Figure 112: Overall 2008 Solar Equipment Market Breakdown ............. 94 Figure 103: Module Market Share (2007).................................................................... 104 Figure 111: Crystalline Silicon Equipment Landscape.............................................................. 82 Figure 92: Barclays Capital Polysilicon Demand Model ...... 79 Figure 89: New Entrants’ Polysilicon Supply Projections................................. 76 Figure 85: PV Supply Chain and Major Players......................................... 2003–12E........ 110 380 May 01.....Solar Energy Handbook Figure 77: Key Cost Per Watt Reduction Drivers .................................................. 79 Figure 88: Solar Polysilicon Breakdown................................................ 78 Figure 87: Polysilicon Supply Breakdown....................... 95 Figure 104: Active Residential Installers (MW Basis).. 80 Figure 90: Worldwide Polysilicon Capacity ....................... 86 Figure 96: Polysilicon Spot and Contract Pricing Trends ............................................... 105 Figure 113: Solar Cell Production Process Flow Chart.................. 102 Figure 108: Solar Equipment Capex ($... 103 Figure 109: Crystalline Cell Capacity Utilization (MW versus % utilization).... 107 Figure 117: Tabber/Stringer.......... 65 Figure 79: Life Cycle Positions of Alternative Energy Technologies ............................................................................................................... 92 Figure 101: Barclays Capital Global Solar Installed Capacity Model (MWp)........................................... 67 Figure 82: Using Stock Screening Methodology for Coverage Stocks ............... 85 Figure 94: Worldwide Polysilicon Demand (Metric Tons)............................................................................ 71 Figure 83: Using Stock Screening Methodology for Coverage Stocks . 85 Figure 95: Polysilicon – Capacity...................... 81 Figure 91: Worldwide Polysilicon Supply................................................................................................. 86 Figure 97: Schematic Approach for the Refining Process ..................... 102 Figure 107:EBITDA Return over Capital Investments................ 98 Figure 105: Active Non-Residential Installers (MW Basis)................................................. 83 Figure 93: Polysilicon Demand Drivers – Semiconductor Industry .................... 88 Figure 98:Wafer Price Forecast.............................. 64 Figure 78: Module and Cell Efficiencies—Crystalline versus Thin Film Solar Technologies ........... 77 Figure 86: Polysilicon Cost Per Watt Projection (2007–12E)........ 106 Figure 116: DSS Furnace and Silicon Ingot.............................................. Million) ................................ 72 Figure 84: Solar Value Chain Cost and ASP Assumptions.......... 92 Figure 100: Cell Price Forecast.. 66 Figure 81: CIGS Technology Matrix... 93 Figure 102:Module Pricing.......................................................

..................S.......................................... 138 Figure 155: Solar Electricity per Capita...................... Market Annual Solar PV Installations (MW) ................................................................ 131 Figure 138: Net Metering Rules................... 141 May 01........... 138 Figure 157: Solar Penetration.......................................................................................... 136 Figure 153: South Korean Feed-In Tariff Program............................................................. 134 Figure 146: Electricity Market Breakup.............. 133 Figure 144: Annual Solar Installations (MW).. 129 Figure 135: U. 134 Figure 148: South Korean Feed-In Tariff Program......................................... 133 Figure 141: Solar Electricity per Capita............................... 119 Figure 123: European Solar Thermal Market (2007)............... 127 Figure 132: Electricity Market Breakup........................................................................................................................................... 135 Figure 149: Annual Solar Installations (MW)............................ 130 Figure 136: Renewable Portfolio Standard Incentives........................................................................................................ 125 Figure 126: Solar Electricity per Capita................ 118 Figure 122: Parabolic Dish Technology................................................................................................................................... 112 Figure 119: Thin Film Production Process ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 125 Figure 127: Electricity Market Breakup.................................................................... 125 Figure 125: Annual Solar Installations (MW)............................................................. 135 Figure 150: Solar Electricity per Capita. 133 Figure 143: Solar Penetration................ 138 Figure 158:Italian Solar Incentives....................................... 138 Figure 156: Electricity Market Breakup........................................................ 136 Figure 152: Solar Penetration............................................................................................. 130 Figure 137: Renewable Portfolio Standards............. 126 Figure 128: Solar Penetration.................................................................... 121 Figure 124:German Incentive Program..........................Solar Energy Handbook Figure 118: Thin Film Cell Equipment Market Breakdown.......................................... Incentives................................................................................................................................................... 117 Figure 121: Central Receiver Technology.............................................................................................................. 131 Figure 139: State Incentives for PV Projects............................ 127 Figure 130: Annual Solar Installations (MW)..... 135 Figure 151: Electricity Market Breakup................................................................................................................. 128 Figure 134: U. 134 Figure 145: Solar Electricity per Capita................................ 128 Figure 133: Solar Penetration................................................................................................ 137 Figure 154: Annual Solar Installations (MW).....................S...................... 126 Figure 129: Spain Incentive Program........................... 112 Figure 120: Parabolic Trough Technology........................................................................ 132 Figure 140: Annual Solar Installations (MW)........................ 133 Figure 142: Electricity Market Breakup................................... 127 Figure 131: Solar Electricity per Capita.......... 2009 381 .................................................................. 140 Figure 159: Annual Solar Installations (MW).................... 134 Figure 147: Solar Penetration...............................

..................... 160 Figure 201: Czech Republic Solar Incentives................................. 151 Figure 186: Portuguese Solar Incentives.............................................Solar Energy Handbook Figure 160: Solar Electricity per Capita................................................................................................................................................. 150 Figure 183: Electricity Market Breakdown. 159 Figure 198: Bulgaria Feed in Tariff..................................................................................................... 2009 ....................................................................................... 150 Figure 184: Annual Solar Installations (MW)............................................ 147 Figure 176: Australia Capital Territory Estimated Financial Return (AUD) ......................................................................................................... 148 Figure 178: Renewable Electricity Market Breakdown . 153 Figure 188: Electricity Market Breakdown................................................................................................................. 143 Figure 168: Annual Solar Installations (MW)...................................................................................................................... 159 Figure 197: Electricity Market Breakdown............................... 148 Figure 179: Annual Solar Installations (MW)................. 141 Figure 161: Electricity Market Breakup........................ 159 Figure 199: Annual Solar Installations (MW)........................................................................................................... 148 Figure 177: Annual Solar Installations (MW).............................................................................................................................. 149 Figure 180: Electricity Market Breakdown................................................... 155 Figure 191: Electricity Market Breakdown.............................................................. 146 Figure 173: Solar Electricity per Capita............... 154 Figure 190: Annual Solar Installations (MW).............................. 150 Figure 182: Annual Solar Installations (MW)..... 144 Figure 169: Solar Electricity per Capita....... 145 Figure 172: Annual Solar Installations (MW)......................................................................... 143 Figure 165: Solar Electricity per Capita................................................................... 143 Figure 166: Electricity Market Breakup............................. 146 Figure 174: Electricity Market Breakup...... 142 Figure 164: Annual Solar Installations (MW).......................................................................................................................... 141 Figure 163:Greek Solar Incentives............................................. 155 Figure 192: Annual Solar Installations (MW).... 151 Figure 185: Electricity Market Breakdown................................. 160 382 May 01........... 144 Figure 170: Electricity Market Breakup.......................................................................... 141 Figure 162: Solar Penetration.......... 157 Figure 195:Belgium Solar Incentives .......................................................................... 156 Figure 193: Electricity Market Breakdown..................................................... 149 Figure 181: Ontario Proposed Feed-in-Tariff ................ 143 Figure 167: Solar Penetration.......... 160 Figure 200: Electricity Market Breakdown.............................. 156 Figure 194: UK Solar Incentive Program......................................................................... 145 Figure 171: Solar Penetration........................................................................................ 153 Figure 189: Switzerland Solar Incentives .............................................. 158 Figure 196: Annual Solar Installations (MW).................. 147 Figure 175: Solar Penetration............................................................................................................. 152 Figure 187: Annual Solar Installations (MW)..........................................................

.............................. Solar PV Demand Model............................. 192 Figure 238: Solar Energy Project Development Process Overview....................... 170 Figure 213: U.......................................................................................... Annual PV Solar Radiation....... 204 Figure 240:Gantt Chart..... 185 Figure 230: States Allowing Unbundled RECs......................................................................................................................................... 188 Figure 234: States with the Highest Capacity Potential ...................... 179 Figure 221:Annual Capacity Additions. 172 Figure 215: India Solar PV Demand Model........................................................................................ 206 May 01................... 205 Figure 241:Model 2: Utility Builds and Owns Plant......... 190 Figure 236: U......... 182 Figure 226: RPS Impacts on Residential Electricity Bills ........... 169 Figure 212: South Korea Solar PV Demand Model ...................................... 162 Figure 205: New PV Installations Breakdown ........... 173 Figure 216: Mandatory and Non Binding Renewable Energy Goals ...... 187 Figure 233: Timeline of Annual and Cumulative Solar Additions ............................................................................ 171 Figure 214: China Solar PV Demand Model ........................................... 182 Figure 227: Carbon Reduction and Displacement Rate......................... 181 Figure 225: Different Renewable Mix Across Regions............................................................... 179 Figure 220: Life Cycle Positions of Various Technologies.................................... 167 Figure 210: Greece Solar PV Demand Model ........ 168 Figure 211: Japan Solar PV Demand Model................... 165 Figure 208: Italy Solar PV Demand Model............... 180 Figure 223: New Renewable Capacity needed by 2025 (Nameplate MW).......................................... Model 1...............................................S.... 161 Figure 204: Solar Demand Scenario (2005–12E)........................................................................................... 183 Figure 228: States Enacting Renewable Portfolio Standards ......................................S................. 177 Figure 218: State Description of RPS Policies ............................ 166 Figure 209: France Solar PV Demand Model................ 164 Figure 207: Spain Solar PV Demand Model............................ 187 Figure 232: States with Solar Set Aside..................... 2009 383 ........... 176 Figure 217: State Description of RPS Policies ............................. 161 Figure 203: Electricity Market Breakdown................................... 202 Figure 239: Model 1: Utility Buys Power to Fill RPS............................................................................. 184 Figure 229: State RPS Exemptions ........ 178 Figure 219: Qualifying Renewable Energy Resources........................................................... 189 Figure 235: Projecting the Future Market Impacts of Existing State Solar Set Asides (Assuming Full Compliance with Existing RPS Standards)...Solar Energy Handbook Figure 202: Annual Solar Installations (MW)....... 191 Figure 237: New Renewable Capacity Needed by 2025 (Nameplate MW).................................... 180 Figure 222:Total Capacity Additions (1998–2007)....................................................................... 163 Figure 206: Germany Solar PV Demand Model.................................. 186 Figure 231: States with Solar or DG Set Asides ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 181 Figure 224: New Renewable Generation Needed by 2025 as a Percent of Projected Statewide Retails Sales........................................................

............................. 224 Figure 256: String Ribbon Technology ........................ 224 Figure 257: Structure of a Dye-Sensitized Cell.......... 214 Figure 250: How Electricity Is Produced in a Solar Cell .............. 211 Figure 247: Model 4: General Solar Energy Project Process – Italy ................................................................. Solar Energy as of 4/20/2009............................................................................................. 226 Figure 260: Spherical Silicon Solar Cell Production...................................... 242 Figure 267: Barclays Capital Global Solar Comparable Valuation Charts as of 4/20/2009.... 218 Figure 251: Benchmark Data for 2010 and 2015 Projections .............................................. 209 Figure 245: Model 4: General Solar Energy Project Process – Germany ..........5%............................................................................................ 222 Figure 254: Amorphous Silicon Cell Structure... 251 Figure 275: SPWRA Balance Sheet........................ 250 Figure 274: SPWRA Income Statement............................................... 208 Figure 244: Gantt Chart: Model 3.............................. 226 Figure 261: PV and Electricity Price Difference for Residential Sector (2007)..... 2009 ............... 247 Figure 271: FSLR Balance Sheet...............................S............................................................. 249 Figure 273: SPWRA Earnings Drivers................ 252 Figure 276: YGE Earnings Drivers.................................................... 221 Figure 253: Next-Generation Fund Allocation........ 229 Figure 263: Solar Electricity Grid-Parity Scenarios in 2015 Due to Annual Electricity Price Escalation of 2..................... 244 Figure 269: FSLR Earnings Drivers ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 246 Figure 270: FSLR Income Statement............ 240 Figure 265: Barclays Capital Global Solar Comparable Trading Statistics as of 4/27/2009..................... 213 Figure 249: Europe Comparative Gantt Chart: Model 4...............................................................................................................................5%...... 241 Figure 266: Barclays Capital Global Solar Comparable Financial Metrics as of 4/27/2009............................................................. 248 Figure 272: SPWRA Earnings Drivers......................................................................................................... 253 384 May 01......................................................... 225 Figure 259: μ-Si/a-Si Solar Cell Structure............ 221 Figure 252: Solar Technology Price Trends.................................... 230 Figure 264: Barclays Capital Global Solar Comparable Valuation Metrics as of 4/27/2009......................................Solar Energy Handbook Figure 242: Gantt Chart: Model 2............................................. 212 Figure 248: Model 4: General Solar Energy Project Process – Greece............................ 243 Figure 268: Barclays Capital Absolute Price Performance – U............................................................... 210 Figure 246: Model 4: General Solar Energy Project Process – Spain................................................................... 207 Figure 243:Model 3: Tax Advantage Project... 225 Figure 258: CIGS Solar Cell Structure........................ 223 Figure 255: CdTe Solar Cell......................................................................................................................................................... 228 Figure 262: Solar Electricity Grid-Parity Scenarios in 2015 Due to Annual Electricity Price Escalation of 1................................

...................... 254 Figure 278: YGE Balance Sheet..... 258 Figure 282: JASO Earnings Drivers........................... 265 Figure 289: SOL Income Statement.................................................................... 313 Figure 316: Cumulative PV Installations (2020)............................................................. 271 Figure 295: CSUN Income Statement......................................... 313 Figure 317: Polysilicon Market Share.............................................................................................. 282 Figure 306: CSIQ Earnings Drivers........................................................................................................................................................................................ 262 Figure 286: TSL Income Statement............... 283 Figure 307: CSIQ Income Statement...................................................................................................................................................................... 286 Figure 310: SOLF Income Statement.................... 281 Figure 305: GT Solar Balance Sheet..... 2009 385 ..................................................................................................... 313 Figure 315: PV Cell Exports .................................................................... 314 May 01..... 268 Figure 292: LDK Income Statement..... 279 Figure 303: GT Solar Revenue Drivers........................................... 257 Figure 281: WFR Balance Sheet...................................................................................... 275 Figure 299: STP Balance Sheet.................... 312 Figure 313: Job Creation Potential of Solar PV Industry................ 273 Figure 297: STP Earnings Drivers ........................................................................................ 287 Figure 311: SOLF Balance Sheet.............................................................................................................. 314 Figure 318: Polysilicon Supply................... 2008E................................................................................................ 255 Figure 279: WFR Earnings Drivers....................... 280 Figure 304: GT Solar Income Statement................................................................................................................................................................. 263 Figure 287: TSL Balance Sheet.......... 269 Figure 293: LDK Balance Sheet.................................................. 260 Figure 284: JASO Balance Sheet..................................................... 278 Figure 302: ENER Balance Sheet................................................................................................................. 270 Figure 294: CSUN Earnings Drivers . 267 Figure 291: LDK Earnings Drivers .............. 259 Figure 283: JASO Income Statement............................. 276 Figure 300: ENER Earnings Drivers...................................................................................................................... 288 Figure 312: World Solar PV Market (2008)............................................................... 266 Figure 290: SOL Balance Sheet......................................................................................................................................................... 312 Figure 314: Value of PV Market........................ 277 Figure 301: ENER Income Statement.........................................Solar Energy Handbook Figure 277: YGE Income Statement................................. 274 Figure 298: STP Income Statement.................... 261 Figure 285: TSL Earnings Drivers........ 256 Figure 280: WFR Income Statement.............................. 264 Figure 288: SOL Earnings Drivers............................... 272 Figure 296: CSUN Balance Sheet................................................................. 285 Figure 309: SOLF Earnings Drivers ................................................................................................................................................... 284 Figure 308: CSIQ Balance Sheet......................................................................................................

............................................... Renewable Portfolio Standards ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 331 Figure 353: California Solar Initiative Demand..S.... 317 Figure 326: Cell Manufacturing Plants....S...... 315 Figure 322: Solar Cell Production.............................S.... 329 Figure 349:California Solar Initiative PBI..... 327 Figure 346: Japanese Solar Market..................... 333 Figure 358: Public Benefit Funds........... 320 Figure 332: German PV Market (MW)....... Germany ............................ 2008........... Solar Market.......................... 322 Figure 336: Israel PV Market (MW).................................................................................................................................................. 326 Figure 344: U... PV Market (MW)................. 334 Figure 360: U..... 324 Figure 341: U.............. 316 Figure 324: Silicon Demand for Semiconductors .. 2008. 323 Figure 339: Mexican PV Market (MW)..............Solar Energy Handbook Figure 319: PV Cell Production (MW) in 2008................................................. 333 Figure 359: Renewable Energy Act.. 329 Figure 350: State Tax Incentives ............................................................. 323 Figure 338: Japanese PV Market (MW)............................................... 2008................................................................................................................. PV Market (MW)........................................................... 325 Figure 342: Solar Energy in Illinois............ 315 Figure 321: Solar Cell Equipment Market............................................................................... 316 Figure 323: Solar Cell Technologies.......................... 320 Figure 333: U...... 318 Figure 329: Canadian PV Market (MW) .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 324 Figure 340: South Korean PV Market (MW).... 332 Figure 356: California Solar Initiative Program... 331 Figure 354: California Solar Initiative Installations............................................................................... 321 Figure 334: Greek PV Market (MW).................................................................................................................... 322 Figure 337: Italian PV Market (MW)............. 330 Figure 352: California Solar Initiative......................... 317 Figure 325: Wafer Manufacturing Plants ...................... 332 Figure 355: California Solar Initiative Program....................................... 326 Figure 345: Japanese Solar Market........................................ 330 Figure 351: Solar Specific RPS in the U.......................................................................................... 334 386 May 01.............................................. Solar Market................................................................................................... 2009 .................................. 318 Figure 328: California PV Market (MW)............................. 328 Figure 348: Building Integrated Photovoltaic Incentives ........................................................... 318 Figure 327: Australian PV Market (MW).......... 321 Figure 335: Indian PV Market (MW).......................S...............................S........................................................ 315 Figure 320: PV Market Scenario....................................................................... 319 Figure 331: French PV Market (MW)... 327 Figure 347: U.......................................................................................... 325 Figure 343: PV Power per Person in the European Union................... 333 Figure 357: Net Metering ................................. 319 Figure 330: Chinese PV Market (MW)................................................................................K..

...... 2008E.............. 346 Figure 387: Austrian Electricity Market........................ 345 Figure 386: Australian Electricity Market............................................................................................................... 343 Figure 382: Solar Cell Growth...... 352 May 01.................................................................................................................................................... 346 Figure 388: Denmark Electricity Market................................ 350 Figure 397: Germany Electricity Prices ............................... 342 Figure 379: Solar Module Production.................................................................................Solar Energy Handbook Figure 361: U. 338 Figure 370: PV Installations by Applications............... 347 Figure 389: French Electricity Market......... 348 Figure 394: South Korean Electricity Market........................................................... 344 Figure 383: Competitiveness of Off-Grid Applications ........... 344 Figure 384: Annual Installed Capacity for Solar Hot Water Systems.... 341 Figure 377: Renewable Power Capacities............ 349 Figure 395: Electricity Prices in Europe.................. 335 Figure 362: Kyoto Target for Reduction of Greenhouse Gases. 335 Figure 363: Minnesota State Utility Solar Incentives....................................... 338 Figure 369: Roof Area Needed for Various Sizes of PV Systems ............................................... 336 Figure 365: Florida State Utility Solar Incentives ........ 337 Figure 366: Colorado State Utility Solar Incentives.............................. 351 Figure 400: Building-Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV)............................................................................................ 339 Figure 372: Solar Cell Growth.......... 338 Figure 368: Employment Generated by Solar ......................................................................................................................... 350 Figure 398: Solar Energy and Peak Power Electricity Market. 2006............ 343 Figure 381:Cell Manufacturing...................................................... 339 Figure 371: Cell Manufacturing....................................... 342 Figure 378: Production Capacities (2010)................................................................... 337 Figure 367: Texas State Utility Solar Incentives................ 342 Figure 380: Taiwanese Solar Companies.......................................................... 352 Figure 401: Cell Efficiencies for Crystalline Cells ................................ 348 Figure 392: Portuguese Electric Market........ 341 Figure 376: PV Sector Investments . 348 Figure 393: Spanish Electricity Market........................ 347 Figure 390: Greek Electricity Market....................................................... 349 Figure 396: German Reserve Capacity .............................................. 341 Figure 375: PV Installations by Applications............................................................. State Solar Goals............................................................... 340 Figure 373: Competitiveness of off grid applications........................................................................................................................................................................... 340 Figure 374: Evolution of Solar Applications................. 336 Figure 364: Washington State Utility Solar Incentives .... 351 Figure 399: United States Reserve Capacity............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 352 Figure 402: CIGS Solar Technology........................................................................... 2009 387 ........................................................................................S.............................. 345 Figure 385: Solar Water Heating by State................. 347 Figure 391: Italian Electricity Market....................................

............................................................. 354 Figure 408: Conversion Efficiencies of Major Solar Technologies.................................................... 363 Figure 427: Laser Reactive Deposition..........S............................................ 361 Figure 423: Thin-Film Panel Efficiencies................................................................................................................................ 372 388 May 01............. 355 Figure 409: Cost per Watt Reduction Process........ 363 Figure 429: Two Types of Linear Concentrator Systems...................... 370 Figure 441: Geothermal Capacity in the United States .... 367 Figure 437: A Brief History of the U................................................................... 358 Figure 416: Silicon ......................................................................... 364 Figure 430: Dish/Engine Systems .............................. 360 Figure 420: Solar Invertors........ 364 Figure 431: Power Tower System.................................................................... 356 Figure 411: Energy Payback Times.......................................................................................................................................... Parabolic Trough Power Plants...............................................Solar Energy Handbook Figure 403: Roadmap for Cadmium Telluride Technology .........................Two Tank Direct System.......................................................................... 353 Figure 406: Concentrated Photovoltaic Technology (CPV)......................................................... 359 Figure 419: Solar Grade Silicon Production Process... 362 Figure 425: Silicon Feedstock Market................. 363 Figure 428: Thin Film Manufacturers ..... 355 Figure 410: Electrochemical PV Cells.................... 362 Figure 424: Wafer Thickness and Silicon Usage................................................... 368 Figure 438: Today’s Modern Wind Turbine...................................................................................................... 356 Figure 412: Fluid Bed Technology Cost.... 366 Figure 434: Single Tank Thermocline System......... 357 Figure 414: Multi-Crystalline Solar Cell Manufacturing Process...................................................................... 371 Figure 442: Geothermal Steam Plants .... 365 Figure 433: Thermal Storage Systems..........................................S....................................................................... 359 Figure 418: Solar Batteries ........ 354 Figure 407: Concentrating Solar Thermal.......................................... 356 Figure 413: Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................ 362 Figure 426: Solar Industry Technologies ....................................................... 353 Figure 405: CO 2 Emission Reduction Due to Solar.................... 357 Figure 415: Siemens Reactor Process.. 353 Figure 404: Roadmap for CIGS Technology.............. 371 Figure 443: Geothermal Binary Plant.......... 358 Figure 417: Silicon Manufacturing Processes.......................................................... 2009 ................................................................................................................ 366 Figure 435: Global Renewable Energy Capacity Growth.... 361 Figure 422: Thin-Film Conversion Efficiencies Potential............ 365 Figure 432: U................ 367 Figure 436: Renewable Energy Investment........................................................................................................................... 369 Figure 439: Size of Wind Turbines........... 372 Figure 444: Announced versus Realistic Power Plant Projects (by 2012) in Europe................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Wind Industry.................... 370 Figure 440: Offshore Wind Technology ............... 360 Figure 421: Solar Module Technologies...........

........ States Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Targets ......... 375 Figure 451: Non Silicon Costs ..............................................................S......... 373 Figure 446: EU 15 Reserve Margin Calculated by CERA..... 374 Figure 448: Percentage of Electricity from Renewable Sources (including Hydroelectric)374 Figure 449: Renewable Energy Act Accounts for About 3% of German Household Electricity Bills............. 376 Figure 453: Global Private Investment by Solar Technology.............. 2009 389 .................... 377 May 01................................... 373 Figure 447: New Thermal Power Plant Capacity Requirements in Europe........................Solar Energy Handbook Figure 445: CO 2 Avoidance Costs Through Building New Power Plants................................ 375 Figure 450: U...... 376 Figure 452: US Utility Sector Potential from ITC........................................................................................

526. and private investment management businesses. New York) 1. We have endeavored to provide conflicts of interest disclosures on a combined basis.Solar Energy Handbook On Septem ber 20.7726 jake.com 390 May 01. 2008. Other Authors: Greenblatt.212. All ratings and price targets prior to the acquisition date relate to coverage under Lehman Brothers Inc.greenblatt@barcap. B arclays Capital acquired L ehman Brothers’ North American investment banking. Jake (BCI. capital markets. 2009 .

Risks Which May Impe de t he Achieve ment of t he Price Tar get: 1) First Solar is highly leveraged to demand trends in German and Spanish markets. Although we believe a significant portion of revenue is already secured in the form of long-term contracts.00 US$ 187.00 2 -Equal weight 1 -Overweight FOR EXPLANATIONS OF RATINGS REFER TO THE STOCK RATING KEYS LOCATED ON THE BACK PAGE.00 180. Barclays Capital and/or one of the ir affiliates beneficially owns 1% or more of any class of common equity securities of First Solar Inc.00 128.00 220..00 64.00 180.96 115.29 (30-Apr-2009) 2-Equal weight / 1-Positive 4-06 7-06 10-06 1-07 4-07 7-07 10-07 1-08 4-08 7-08 10-08 1-09 4-09 Closing Price Recommendation Change Price Target Drop Coverage Source: FactSet Currency=US$ Date 08-Apr-09 17-Mar-09 17-Mar-09 13-Nov-08 09-Oct-08 Closing Price 135.00 192.00 320. any environmental concerns that arise with the use of cadmium may slow down the growth potential for this technology in the US market.00 224.31 118. We generally remain bullish on F irst Solar’s growth potential in the US market. Barclays Capital and/or an affiliate makes a market or provides liquidity in the securities of First Solar Inc.00 Date 23-Jun-08 13-Feb-08 08-Nov-07 23-Oct-07 23-Oct-07 Closing Price 288. As of 28-Apr-2009 Currency = USD 352.96 125. 2009 391 .00 228. this may reduce the scarcity factor in First Solar’s current valuation.00 96.00 256.43 150. We believe any further upside to estimates hinges upon the company’s ability to secure additional long-term contracts at currently favorable pricing terms as well as better tctedxre is some element of “scarcity factor” in First Solar’s valuation and as more thin film companies go public over the next 12-18 months.00 32.00 140. (FSLR) Rating and Price Target Chart: FIRST SOLAR INC.00 110.00 288.10 Rating Price Target 120.00 160.16 Rating Price Target 335.69 115. both of which are expected to remain strong through 2H07.. Barclays Capital and/or an affiliate trade regularly in the shares of First Solar Inc.00 280..16 150. however.46 224.Solar Energy Handbook Important Disclosures: First Solar Inc. 2) First Solar’s shares are currently discounting significant top-line growth resulting from highly secured contracts with fixed price digressions and robust margin expansion resulting from the company’ s aggressive cost reduction plans. May 01. a substantial portion of unsecured revenue could be impacted by any potential changes in the government incentives in these regions.

Barclays Capital and/or an affiliate trade regularly in the shares of JA Solar Holdings Co.00 14. JA Solar Holdings Co.51 (30-Apr-2009) 1-Overweight / 1-Positive 4-06 7-06 10-06 1-07 4-07 7-07 10-07 1-08 4-08 7-08 10-08 1-09 4-09 Closing Price Recommendation Change Price Target Drop Coverage Source: FactSet Currency=US$ Date 10-Mar-09 13-Nov-08 15-Oct-08 29-Sep-08 28-May-08 13-Mar-08 Closing Price 2.74 23..00 10.00 22.. within the last 12 months.17 15. 2) polysilicon supply tight ness causing margin pressure. Barclays Capital and/or Lehman Brothers Inc.00 Date 03-Mar-08 18-Dec-07 26-Nov-07 23-Oct-07 23-Oct-07 Closing Price 14. Ltd.67 18.00 29. within the next 3 months.00 20.21 2.. 2009 .00 As of 28-Apr-2009 Currency = USD US$ 3.00 30. is or during the last 12 months has been a non-investment banking client (securities related services) of Barclays Capital and/or Lehman Brothers Inc.24 22. Risks Which May Impe de t he Achieve ment of t he Price Tar get: Risks include: 1) policy risks in Germany.34 18.78 17..00 22.55 5. Ltd.00 4. Barclays Capital and/or Lehman Brothers Inc. Ltd.00 18.. Ltd. Barclays Capital and/or an affiliate makes a market or provides liquidity in the securities of JA Solar Holdings Co. Barclays Capital and/or Lehman Brothers Inc.00 6.00 16. Ltd. and/or one of their affiliates. Barclays Capital and/or an affiliate expects to receive or intends to seek compensation for investment banking services from JA Solar Holdings Co. JA Solar Holdings Co.68 10. Spain. Ltd.00 12. 3) oversupply in the cell market 392 May 01.00 26. Ltd. in the past 12 months.17 Rating Price Target 3..33 2 -Equal weight 1 -Overweight FOR EXPLANATIONS OF RATINGS REFER TO THE STOCK RATING KEYS LOCATED ON THE BACK PAGE.00 24.00 2.34 Rating Price Target 27.00 8..Solar Energy Handbook Important Disclosures Continued: JA Solar Holdings Co.00 24. LTD.70 18.00 26.67 21. and/or one of their affiliates has managed or co-managed within the past 12 months a 144A and/or public offering of securities for JA Solar Holdings Co. and/or one of their affiliates has received compensation for investment banking services from JA Solar Holdings Co.. and/or one of their affiliates has received non-investment banking related compensation from JA Solar Holdings Co. Ltd.. (JASO) Rating and Price Target Chart: JA SOLAR HOLDINGS CO.65 4. (ADS) 32. Ltd...00 0.00 28. and/or one of their affiliates. is or during the past 12 months has been an investment banking client of Barclays Capital and/or Lehman Brothers Inc..

. we believe that the growth and efficiency of surrounding ecosystem of installation services.00 40.00 128.00 Price Target 18.00 FOR EXPLANATIONS OF RATINGS REFER TO THE STOCK RATING KEYS LOCATED ON THE BACK PAGE.00 144.00 65.00 96.38 (30-Apr-2009) 2-Equal weight / 1-Positive 4-06 7-06 10-06 1-07 4-07 7-07 10-07 1-08 4-08 7-08 10-08 1-09 4-09 Closing Price Recommendation Change Price Target Drop Coverage Source: FactSet Currency=US$ Date 17-Mar-09 17-Mar-09 13-Nov-08 05-Nov-08 22-Oct-07 Closing Price 20.99 101. Barclays Capital and/or an affiliate trade regularly in the shares of SunPower Corp. Sanyo and Kyocera to continue to use their substantial cash balances to continue to invest in capacity as well as R&D. Barclays Capital and/or an affiliate makes a market or provides liquidity in the securities of SunPower Corp.00 152.46 Rating 1 -Overweight Price Target 70. and speculation continues around other diversified companies interested in solar's growth prospects. Barclays Capital and/or an affiliate hold a short position of at le ast 1% of the outstanding share capital of SunPower Corp. (SPWR) Rating and Price Target Chart: SUNPOWER CORP. While execution risk on its capacity ramp from 25 to 75 mW is also prevalent. Barclays Capital and/or one of the ir affiliates beneficially owns 1% or more of any class of common equity securities of SunPower Corp.Solar Energy Handbook Important Disclosures Continued: SunPower Corp.00 24. and/or one of their affiliates.00 64..00 56. Honda recently announced a thin film cell init iative for 2007. 2009 393 .75 Rating 2 -Equal weight 35.00 136.00 120.91 20.. and we expect large conglomerates such as Sharp. We be lieve the currently favorable subsidy environment in Germany.00 As of 28-Apr-2009 Currency = USD US$ 27. and/or one of their affiliates has received non-investment banking related compensation from SunPower Corp.00 32.00 60.00 88.00 115.55 38.00 Date 22-Oct-07 20-Jul-07 27-Apr-07 21-Apr-06 Closing Price 101. is or during the last 12 months has been a non-investment banking client (securities related services) of Barclays Capital and/or Lehman Brothers Inc. In addition. maintenance and consumer education is key to continued growth and health of the industry.00 104. within the last 12 months. (CL A) 160. competition and the race for capacity is meaningful. Barclays Capital and/or Lehman Brothers Inc.00 39. Lastly.00 80.75 67. May 01. other areas in Europe and select states in the United States is important for overall industry momentum and eventual price parity with other readily available forms of electricity. there is risk that suppliers could demand higher prices or not deliver supply as agreed.00 16. Risks Which May Impe de t he Achieve ment of t he Price Tar get: SunPower faces a number of risks including polysilicon pricing and other macroeconomic factors. at present we believe Line 2 ramp is slightly ahead of plan with Line 3 now beginning.. While we believe SunPower has solid contracts and supply agreements with its polysilicon suppliers.00 112. SunPower Corp.00 48. We also expect new players to be attracted to the market.00 72.94 59.11 32.91 28.

42 Rating Price Target 60. depends largely on government incentive policies. LTD. Barclays Capital and/or an affiliate trade regularly in the shares of Suntech Power Holdings.00 72.82 17.00 16.00 US$ 14.95 5.93 (30-Apr-2009) 3-Underweight / 1-Positive 4-06 7-06 10-06 1-07 4-07 7-07 10-07 1-08 4-08 7-08 10-08 1-09 4-09 Closing Price Recommendation Change Price Target Drop Coverage Source: FactSet Currency=US$ Date 18-Feb-09 20-Nov-08 13-Nov-08 03-Nov-08 03-Nov-08 26-Sep-08 Closing Price 8.00 8. 2009 .00 11. and hence growth in Suntech's profits.05 80.00 88.82 38. (ADS) As of 28-Apr-2009 Currency = USD 104.00 40.48 Rating Price Target 6.00 48.00 1 -Overweight 3 -Underweight 1 -Overweight FOR EXPLANATIONS OF RATINGS REFER TO THE STOCK RATING KEYS LOCATED ON THE BACK PAGE. Government policies are not highly predictable.00 Date 21-Feb-08 19-Feb-08 18-Dec-07 12-Dec-07 16-Nov-07 Closing Price 39.89 78.00 64.00 96. Risks Which May Impe de t he Achieve ment of t he Price Tar get: Growth of the PV industry.00 100.00 56.00 24.39 11.00 8.00 0.00 80. Hence the accuracy of our estimates for the company may be affected by changing policies that impact the solar energy sector.00 32. 394 May 01.53 69.00 80.Solar Energy Handbook Important Disclosures Continued: Suntech Power Holdings (STP) Rating and Price Target Chart: SUNTECH POWER HOLDINGS CO.50 4.80 17.00 75.60 45.

Ltd. 2009 395 . (CSIQ) Energy Conversion Devices (ENER) First Solar Inc.. the investment banking division of Barclays Bank Plc (Barclays Capital.. (CSUN) Evergreen Solar Inc. (SOLF) Suntech Power Holdings (STP) Yingli Green Energy Holding Co.. Ltd. JA Solar Holdings Co. (SOLR) LDK Solar Company Limited (LDK) ReneSola Ltd.38 US$ 14.A.29 US$ 3. São Paulo) Mentioned Company First Solar I nc. (BBSA. Ltd.. Ltd. London) New York Barclays Capital Inc. Ltd. (BCI. (SOL) SunPower Corp. (FSLR) JA Solar Holdings Co.Solar Energy Handbook Important Disclosures Continued: Sector Coverage U niverse Below is the list of companies that constitute the sector coverage universe: Canadian Solar Inc. (SPWR) Trina Solar Limited (TSL) Barclays Capital offices involve d in t he pr oduction of E quity Research: London Barclays Capital. Tokyo) São Paulo Banco Barclays S. (YGE) China Sunergy Co.51 US$ 27.93 Price Date 30 Apr 2009 30 Apr 2009 30 Apr 2009 30 Apr 2009 Stock / Sector Rating 2-Equal weight / 1-Positive 1-Overweight / 1-Positive 2-Equal weight / 1-Positive 3-Underweight / 1-Positive May 01. Suntech Power Holdings Ticker FSLR JASO SPWR STP Price US$ 187. SunPower Corp. (JASO) MEMC Electronic Materials (WFR) Solarfun Power Holdings Co. New York) Tokyo Barclays Capital Japan Lim ited (BCJL. (ESLR) GT Solar International Inc..

All rights reserved. New York 10019. directors. E14 5HP. Barclays Bank PLC Frankfurt Branch is dis tributing this material in Germany under the supervis ion of Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsic ht (BaFin). persons should contact and execute transactions through a Barclays Bank PLC branch or affiliate in their home jurisdiction unless local regulations permit otherwise. you should seek advice based on your particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor. Neither Barclays Capital. tax-related penalties. including persons involved in the preparation or issuance of this document. Chiyoda-ku.com /disclosures Important Disclosures Continued: The analysts responsible for preparing this report have received compensation based upon var ious factors including the f irm's total revenues.The stock is expected to perform in line with the unweighted expected total return of the sector coverage universe over a 12-month investment horizon. by you for the purpose of avoiding U.S. NY 10019 OR REFER TO THE FIRM'S DISCLOSURE WEBSITE AT www. Non-U. Any U. IRS Circular 230 Prepared Materials Disclaimer: Barclays Capital and its affiliates do not provide tax advice and nothing contained herein should be construed to be tax advice. This publication has been prepared by Barclays Capital. A rating system using terms such as buy. The investments to whic h it relates are available only to such persons and will be entered into only with such persons. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any manner without the prior written permis sion of Barclays Capital or any of its affiliates. Guide to the Barclays Capital Fundamental Equity Research Rating System: Our coverage analysts use a relative rating system in which they rate stocks as 1-Overweight. deal in. this report is being distributed by Barclays Capital Japan Limited to institutional investors only. 3-Underweight . RS-Rating Suspended . brokers or commercial and/or investment bankers in relation to the securities or related derivatives which are the subject of this publication.The stock is expected to underperform the unweighted expected total return of the sector coverage universe over a 12-month investment horizon. 1026167.sector coverage universe fundamentals/valuations are steady. neither improving nor deteriorat ing. the Investment Banking Division of ABSA Bank Limited. but Barclays Capital does not represent or warrant that it is accurate or complete. Please be advised that any discussion of U. and Barclays Capital has no obligation to update its opinions or the information in this publication. 2-Neutral . please go to www. Other than disclosures relating to Barclays Capital. may from time to time act as manager. an authorised financial services provider (Registration No.sector coverage universe fundamentals/valuations are deteriorating. and/or one or more of its affiliates as provided below. in connection therewith accepts responsibility for its contents. nor any of their respective officers. It is a subsidiary of Barclays Bank PLC and a registered financial instruments firm regulated by the Financial Servic es Agency of Japan. This communication is being made available in the UK and Europe to persons who are investment professionals as that term is defined in Article 19 of the Financial Servic es and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion Order) 2005.S. person wishing to effect a transaction in any security discussed herein should do so only by contacting a representative of Barclays Capital Inc. Any South African person or entity wishing to effect a transaction in any security discussed herein should do so only by contacting a representative of ABSA Capital in South Africa. US regis tered broker/dealer and member of FINRA (www. London. co-manager or underwriter of a public offering or otherwis e. Barclays Capital is authorized and regulated by the Financial Services Authority (‘FSA’) and member of the London Stock Exchange. Otemachi.sector coverage universe fundamentals/valuations are improving. New York. 143.The rat ing and target price have been suspended temporarily due to market events that made coverage impracticable or to comply with applicable regulations and/or firm policies in certain circumstances including when Barclays Capital is acting in an adv isory capacity in a merger or strategic transaction involving the company. Accordingly. 2196. Barclays Capital Japan Limited is a joint-stock company incorporated in Japan with registered office of 2-2-2. Sector View: 1-Positive .FOR CURRENT IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES REGARDING COMPANIES THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THIS RESEARCH REPORT. partners. nor any affiliate. including those of Barclays Capital and/or its affiliates. Investors should carefully read the ent ire research report including t he definitions of all ratings and not infer its contents from ratings alone. PLEASE SEND A WRITTEN REQUEST TO: BARCLAYS CAPITAL RESEARCH COMPLIANCE 745 SEVENTH AVENUE.org). 2-Equal weight . the information contained in this publication has been obtained from sources that Barclays Capital believes to be reliable. Japan. The analyst recommendations in this report reflect solely and exclusively those of the author(s). Additional information regarding this publication will be furnished upon request. the investment banking division of Barclays Bank PLC. 15 ALICE LANE.lehman. at 745 Seventh Avenue. Barclays Bank PLC is regis tered in England No. hold or act as market-makers or advisors. is dis tributing this material in the United States and. Tokyo 100-0004. tax matters contained herein (including any attachments) (i) is not intended or written to be used. In addition to the stock rating.The stock is expected to outperform the unweighted expected total return of the sector coverage universe over a 12-month investment horizon.SANDTON. and cannot be used. persons who have professional experience in matters relating to investments. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. Barclays Capital Inc. The views in this publication are those of Barclays Capital and are subject to change. The information in this publication is not intended to predic t actual results. which may differ substantially from those reflected. 17TH FLOOR. and such opinions were prepared independently of any other interests. Stock Ratings: 1-Overweight . directors. JOHANNESBURG. and therefore should only be relied upon by. Barclays Capital recommends that investors independently evaluate each issuer. US09-0031 . Registered Number: Kanto Zaimukyokucho (kinsho) No. hold and sell is not t he equivalent of our rat ing system. The value of and income from any investment may fluctuate from day to day as a result of changes in relevant economic markets (including changes in market liquidity). ABSA CAPITAL. This publication is provided to you for information purposes only.finra.S. 2-Equal weight or 3-Underweight (see definitions be low) relative to other companies covered by the analyst or a team of analysts that are deemed to be in the same industry sector (“the sector coverage universe”). The securities discussed in this publication may not be suitable for all investors. In Japan.S. NEW YORK. © Copyright Barclays Bank PLC (2009).: 1986/004794/06). in the U. security or instrument discussed in this publication and consult any independent advisors they believe necessary. or employees accepts any liability whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss aris ing from any use of this publication or its contents. Subject to the conditions of this publication as set out above.lehman. 2 -Neutral or 3-Negative (see definit ions below).S. Pric es shown in this publication are indicative and Barclays Capital is not offering to buy or sell or soliciting offers to buy or sell any financial instrument. we provide sector views which rate the outlook for the sector coverage universe as 1-Positive. Barclays Capital and its affiliates and their respective officers. a portion of which is generated by investment banking activities. 3-Negative ..com/disclosures. Registered office 1 Churchill Place. partners and employees. It is directed at. is distributing this material in South Afric a. To see a list of companies that comprise a particular sector coverage universe. GAUTENG. in the capacity of principal or agent. ABSA CAPITAL IS AN AFFILIATE OF BARCLAYS CAPITAL. and (ii) was written to support the promotion or marketing of the transactions or other matters addressed herein.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful