This summary of the Manufacturing and Competitiveness (M&C) portion of the 2022 Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO) Peer Review covers discussions between reviewers and their discussions with SETO’s awardees. See descriptions of all M&C projects that were analyzed as part of this review.
The first section covers the overall M&C review, taking all projects into account. The subsequent sections cover specific topics within the M&C portfolio.
The following reviewers participated in the M&C portion of the Peer Review:
- Jeremy Theil (chair, author of the Manufacturing & Competitiveness Overall Portfolio Review section)
- Rebecca Belisle (lead reviewer, author of the Cell Technologies Portfolio Review section)
- Sara Eftekharnejad (lead reviewer, author of the Grid and Systems Integration Portfolio Review section)
- David McDougall (lead reviewer, author of the Installation Portfolio Review section)
- Jayan Thomas (lead reviewer, author of the Metrology Portfolio Review section)
- Frank Vignola (lead reviewer, author of the Multi-Use Portfolio Review section)
- John Benner (lead reviewer, author of the Other Portfolio Review section)
- Serdar Celik
- Kody Powell
Manufacturing & Competitiveness Overall Portfolio Review
Goals and Strategy
The goal of SETO’s M&C track is to accelerate expansion of domestic manufacturing capacity, increase the domestic value and content, and job creation across the entire supply chain by reducing technology risk and hence commercial risk, as well as stimulating domestic innovation. Specifically, by 2025 SETO aims to decrease the cost of solar to LCOE < 0.03 kWh for utility-scale photovoltaics (PV), and to increase grid flexibility by targeting $1.36/Woc for PV plus energy storage costs. Overall, these goals aim to increase U.S. competitiveness in manufacturing. The strategy by which SETO accomplishes these goals is to engage in public private partnerships and support business at all stages of demonstration and commercialization.
This strategy is entirely appropriate, as are the goals. However, it must be noted that SETO has a difficult challenge given that during the past decade, the United States lost most of its competitiveness in upstream solar components due to external factors and no longer has a viable domestic supply chain. This is due to closures of domestic manufacturing capacity; foreign manufacturers have invested heavily in improved technology and capacity expansion, including some technology improvements, which were through acquisition of American companies and assets.
Alignment with Goals
Generally, the projects reviewed align with the track and its goals given SETO’s resources and constraints. There are many small, early-stage projects focused on product or component proof-of-concepts that give many options for manufacturing across the entire supply and deployment chain. Multiple reviewers noted that some projects appear to lack clear metrics, making it difficult to tell either how well they aligned or how well they were making progress. SMART goals (Specific Measurable Achievable Relevant Time-related) should be regularly used and when possible, they should align with industry-adopted metrics.
Funding and Resource Allocation
The M&C Track funds primarily very early stage programs, which is the best use of the funding resources given. In most topics, reviewers believe the number of projects and the funding available for them is not enough for the industry to recover and grow. While SETO supports some pilot-line validation projects, they do not have enough funds for the number of later-stage projects that are necessary to validate the concepts for commercialization. There are a few small-scale projects that do not require large investment for productization; however, these types of projects are insufficient to encourage the supply chain required for a viable domestic solar industry (i.e. large enough to supply a significant fraction of domestic demand let alone access an export market). Given this, the reviewers feel it is critically important to increase both the amount of funding and the number of projects.
Technical Diversity
For the most part, the track has adequate technical diversity. There are a few areas believed to have too many projects. These include perovskite commercialization programs and peer-to-peer transaction platforms. The installation topic is underrepresented in several areas, including exploration of alternative materials for installation components, wiring, and wiring components. Aspects of installation programs that can be improved include beefing up requirements and planning for domestic manufacturing of installation components and improve connection between analytical resources and projects.
Advancing the Mission
Given SETO’s constraints, the projects match the mission as well as can be expected. However, the review team believes these projects do not support the industry in the best way that SETO could support them because of the lack of appropriations and lack of continuity in those appropriations. SETO needs to have the appropriations to allow it to 1) set up resources and operate them over the long-term that could technically support the industry, 2) fund larger-scale programs geared towards technology demonstration, and 3) manufacturing proof-of-concept.
While the projects funded tap into high priority areas in the PV supply and manufacturing pipeline, there are currently holes in that pipeline where the United States does not have substantial domestic manufacturing. This impairs the ability of project researchers to efficiently collaborate and contribute to a robust U.S. solar industry, such as in wafer and silicon cell manufacturing and affordable solar glass, and severely hampers the ability for many critical SETO projects to transition into viable domestic business opportunities. Because there is a fair amount of domestic content in installation, these projects can support existing and new module designs as they come to market. Power electronic systems have the potential to also increase domestic value-added content if SETO's continues to fund them and the federal government creates an attractive on-shoring policy.
Areas of Improvement
On the whole, there is a good balance of topics being tackled and there are no major “blind spots.” Reviewers found a few areas to which more attention could be paid. These include recycling of all system components, especially modules. It is important for issues to be identified now so improved recyclability concepts can be incorporated into component design and materials sooner rather than later. For grid integration, more attention should be paid to grid dynamics and market understanding of end customers, regulators, and utilities. Lastly, multiple reviewers mentioned that it is important for SETO to provide more opportunities for investors to interact with principal investigators (PIs) and find ways to improve access to capital for projects as they successfully conclude.
A couple of reviewers were concerned that some projects did not have adequate intellectual property (IP) protections, protection practices, or strategies to prevent acquisition by foreign owned or operated entities. They suggest providing training to PIs as well as assessment of their IP plans as part of proposal and project review. It would be good for SETO to have the resources, support, and/or means to assure IP from those projects benefit domestic manufacturing.
Stakeholder Engagement
Projects are well informed by supply chain stakeholders and most have some industry representation. Additionally, financing stakeholders in some areas are also well represented; the PACT board is particularly good in this regard with inclusion of banking and insurance representation. Overall, the project planners are well connected with the related partners in the installation space. Many of them seem to be connected with asset owners and EPCs.
The reviewers noted the need for technical collaborations that support small-scale to large-scale transition; for example, going from fabricating absorber films to solar cells, and from solar cells to solar modules. Such collaborations would ensure that the funded projects are achieving their technological aims and de-risk the scale these technologies. The reviewers suggest the academic community be better engaged in project dissemination; for example, internships could be one avenue to engage students and transfer knowledge. For grid projects, there could better engagement of the general public, as many products are intended to be used by household consumers. Survey analysis could be a valuable tool.
The groups of stakeholders that are missing are the regulators and various advocacy groups. In order to install the products being developed, rules and regulation must be implemented. This takes time and effort and is overlooked to some degree in most projects. Getting regulators involved before the final designs are made would help reduce the number of structural changes that may be necessary.
Final Feedback
SETO is doing an excellent job managing technological progress for domestic solar manufacturing, given their resources and the constraints under which they operate. They fill important gaps in early-stage technology development for manufacturing. However, SETO does not have nearly enough money to fulfill its mission moving those technologies to a point where private investors will commercialize them. Furthermore, the externalities under which SETO operates include 1) congressional directives that dictate the majority of M&C funding; 2) a lack of a viable domestic solar manufacturing ecosystem; and 3) a laissez-faire and piece-meal American industrial policy that is up against assertive and comprehensive industrial policies of many other industrial and industrializing countries. This makes it difficult to attract new private investors.
In 2021, the international solar market installation about 140 GW of new generating capacity, with about 22 GW of that in the United States (growing at ~25% per year), while the total U.S. module production capacity is about 7 GW. The gap represents a large opportunity for the United States to capture investment dollars that are going overseas, but this needs to be de-risked by dealing with some of the aforementioned externalities. There are things that SETO, DOE, and the federal government can do, which would result in sustained high-quality economic growth and improve the United States balance of trade.
In the M&C area, there are two things that SETO could do with additional funding to develop technological infrastructure to de-risk manufacturing concepts. The first is to build multiple prototyping lines, each targeting a different PV manufacturing technology and operated as a user facility. These facilities must be allowed to purchase of state-of-the-art equipment regardless of country of origin and be able to update these lines every 3 years or so. This allows domestic companies to test their technologies on a best-in-class platform and gives insight to domestic companies as to what it takes to design best-in-class equipment.
The other is for SETO to offer competitive challenges to create manufacturing pilot-lines using technologies domestic manufacturers want to scale. The goal will be to have a working line that they can duplicate for high volume production. These competitions would require 3-4 year programs, with government commitment of about $100-$200 million per competition and would require a 50% cost share by the winning team. The time commitment is required to fully demonstrate the technology, and the government spend is roughly half of what it would take to build and operate a pilot line. It should be enough of a subsidy to attract new entrants into the market. It would be good for SETO to fund five or six of these, staggering the start times over a 3-6 year period; they should award only as they become fully funded. There should not be an expectation that all of these will be successful.
As for externalities, it is important for SETO to have more flexibility in selecting programs to fund. The office has a clear picture of the overall state of the industry and can assess the readiness of technologies like perovskites and cadmium telluride. Therefore, it is recommended that Congress appropriate money for the general effort and allow SETO the ability to apportion funds to the different technologies. It is also recommended that the government make the domestic value add and domestic content key evaluation metrics.
The DOE can have a large effect assisting development of a domestic manufacturing base. The Loan Program Office and the Office of Clean Energy Demonstration and Deployment need to lend or grant money to encourage domestic plant siting.
Lastly, the federal government can assist by creating domestic and foreign infrastructure banks that lend money to solar generation projects domestically and abroad with the stipulation that they only buy from American companies (and with a high minimum American value add content) and use American engineering firms to site and install. This will have the benefit of creating a market for American manufacturing and engineering firms, generating capacity domestically, and goodwill abroad. Federal tax credits for building and operating domestic manufacturing facilities should be created. Most importantly, the federal government should develop an industrial policy that encourages creation and support of second-tier manufacturing industries for the overall domestic economy.
Cell Technologies Portfolio Review
Goals and Strategy
SETO’s goals and strategies in the M&C area are focused expanding the domestic solar industry. Specifically, by 2025, SETO aims to decrease the cost of solar (to a LCOE < 0.03 kWh for utility scale PV), and increase domestic solar manufacturing (installing 1 GW/y of U.S. technologies not commercialized as of 2020 and increasing the domestic value of installed solar technologies to >40%). Overall, these goals aim to increase the competitiveness of U.S. solar technologies, increase the amount of solar being deployed, and expand the solar workforce by doing so.
To achieve these goals, SETO’s strategy within the Cell Technologies topic area is to identify projects that are likely to achieve the above aims if given the financial and institutional support of SETO. M&C looks to fund projects across the PV supply and manufacturing chain that support both mature and emerging solar technologies. In the case of mature technologies (e.g. silicon PV), the focus is on identifying opportunities for innovation that will reduce cost and increase the domestic value of these more established technologies. In the case of emerging solar technologies (e.g. perovskite PV), the focus is on identifying opportunities that serve to de-risk the technology and enable more rapid scale up and ultimately deployment of these new absorber technologies.
Alignment with Goals
The projects managed under this topic span mature and emerging technologies and a broad swath of the PV supply and manufacturing chain – from improvements in solar glass to increasing the reliability and lifetime of solar modules. The reviewers found that within this broad scope, all the projects are doing work that directly contributes to SETO’s mission as outlined above. Many projects are developing technologies that are well-positioned to decrease costs within the solar manufacturing pipeline and increase overall performance, thereby supporting SETO’s goal of reducing the LCOE of solar PV. Additionally, many of the projects are developing technologies that should increase the throughput of solar manufacturing, thereby reducing cost and increasing deployability.
Most of the projects in this review have conducted broad stakeholder engagement and techno-economic assessments with the support of SETO, further de-risking these technologies. Additionally, the broad use of national labs and connections to the American Made Network by funded projects suggests that not only do the technologies chosen fit SETO’s goals, but that they are well chosen as technologies that specifically benefit from SETO’s involvement.
Funding and Resource Allocation
There are many points in the PV supply and manufacturing chain, and to have a robust and expansive domestic solar industry will require substantial investment. Given this, the reviewers feel both the amount of funding and the number of projects could be increased. The M&C group is supporting many projects in the process of scaling up their technologies, going from small scale demonstration to pilot project. This requires both substantial equipment investment and an increase in personnel.
With regards to the number of projects, given the importance of improved cell technologies and manufacturing in SETO achieving its goals, the number of projects currently being reviewed seems small. With a higher number of projects SETO might better foster collaboration amongst emerging U.S. solar technologies, thereby supporting co-development of multiple pieces of the PV supply chain (e.g. connecting absorber deposition with cell development with improved packaging).
Technical Diversity
The projects currently being funded include technologies that support both mature and emerging PV technologies and will provide innovations at various points in the PV supply and manufacturing chain. While several of the projects have similar goals (e.g. the development of lower cost and higher throughput TCOs), the reviewers note the diversity in approach for these technologies and see that the industrial need of such solutions across the solar industry warrants multiple approaches. The reviewers did hope to see a higher diversity of projects specifically for emerging technologies, where a broader technological approach would increase the bankability of such technologies. It is our understanding that such projects are now within the M&C portfolio, though were outside the scope of this review.
Advancing the Mission
SETO aims to increase the competitiveness of U.S. solar technologies by decreasing the cost of solar energy and increasing domestic manufacturing of solar technologies. The reviewed projects contribute to this mission and are likely to serve the U.S. solar industry. Promisingly, all of the projects reviewed had technological innovations that could impact multiple sectors within the solar industry (e.g. applicable to multiple PV technologies). Additionally, the reviewers noted that many of the projects had technological applications outside of traditional PV. These additional applications and interest from a broader community of stakeholders may help these technologies transition from pilot or lab scale to production scale, thereby enabling SETO’s mission of increased domestic solar manufacturing. Finally, the scope of projects supports both immediate needs in the PV manufacturing industry as well as emerging issues. Funding these types of projects in parallel should increase the deployment speed of U.S. solar technologies.
However, a potential challenge to SETO achieving its mission is the current status of solar manufacturing in the United States. While the projects funded tap into high priority areas in the PV supply and manufacturing pipeline, there are currently holes in that pipeline where the U.S. does not have substantial domestic capacity. This reduces the ability of the projects to efficiently collaborate and contribute to a robust U.S. solar industry. In considering the scope of projects moving forward, SETO may look to identify additional projects, industry partners, or national lab capacity that might address these gaps.
Areas of Improvement
As the U.S. solar industry expands materials usage, both sourcing and recycling will become of increasing importance. Only one of the projects reviewed addressed materials scarcity or recyclability concerns. Moving forward, including projects that address these lifecycle issues could support both the development and robustness of a growing U.S. solar industry.
Stakeholder Engagement
Potential customers, academic partners, national labs, equipment manufacturers, and other members of the solar industry are all stakeholders for the projects reviewed. This wide range of stakeholders matches the challenge of reducing PV cost and expanding solar manufacturing. While there is a wide range of stakeholders for these projects, the reviewers noted the need for collaborations that support small scale to large scale transition; for example, going from fabricating absorber films to solar cells, and from solar cells to solar modules. Such collaborations would ensure that the funded projects are achieving their technological aims, and de-risk the scale of up these technologies.
Final Feedback
From discussions with current project stakeholders, it is clear that the M&C division at SETO is filling an important funding gap for many domestic solar technologies. The investment and support of SETO has enabled groups to scale up their technologies, connect with collaborators, perform characterization testing at national labs, and perform techno-economic analyses and customer engagement activities. All these efforts increase the likelihood that these technologies will become part of a U.S. solar industry. In particular, the connections and access to national labs seems central to the success of many of the projects in SETO’s portfolio. Given the pivotal role these national labs play, and their high visibility within the solar startup community, it would be beneficial for SETO to ensure that these centers continue to have the necessary resources to support cutting edge innovation and perform advanced characterization.
SETO’s success in its mission will require many of the currently funded projects to scale dramatically and quickly. SETO might consider playing a bigger role in addressing this challenge. For example, one reviewer suggested SETO might host a conference or meeting that connects project participants with investors.
Grid and Systems Integration Portfolio Review
Goals and Strategy
The overall goal of the grid and system integration topic in the M&C research area is to develop technology that facilitates the integration of solar energy resources, enhances grid reliability, and increases customer participation in grid operations, while increasing domestic manufacturing and creating jobs.
A range of innovative technology such as power electronics to cyber security solutions is needed to meet future solar integration goals while being mindful of costs and grid reliability. Hence, the approach taken by SETO seems appropriate.
Alignment with Goals
Most projects, particularly in power electronics, align well with the M&C goals and strategies. Few projects, mainly on grid-interactive buildings, demonstrated less alignment with manufacturing or competitive goals. More clear metrics are needed to assess alignment with SETO goals. Some projects could improve cost/benefit analysis to demonstrate alignment with goals and clear advantages over the existing technology.
Funding and Resource Allocation
The funding level was appropriate for most projects. The direct connection of some projects to the M&C mission of SETO was less clear. There are overlaps with other programs such as building technology, where the funded projects could better fit the defined goals.
More funding could be allocated to projects that consider the grid functionalities of the inverter-based resources. It appeared that most technology developments had been performed with limited consideration of the grid side dynamics and control functionalities.
Technical Diversity
The projects that develop peer-to-peer transactive platforms have similarities and overlaps. Projects on inverter technology demonstrate adequate technical diversity. However, they lack consideration of cybersecurity issues critical to customers in the future. There was only one dedicated project on cybersecurity. Technology that would facilitate solar-plus-storage applications was underrepresented.
Advancing the Mission
The projects in this topic area generally aligned well with SETO's mission. The projects that develop new types of inverters target a reduction in the solar integration costs with novel power electronics while increasing domestic manufacturing capabilities. These projects will result in job creation and could potentially have a high impact. The direct alignment of a small number of projects with SETO’s missions was less clear (e.g., projects that target demand flexibility in buildings).
Areas of Improvement
The reviewers identified no significant blind spots. Possible points that could further improve the scope of the projects:
- Some projects in the long-term require input from households, regulators, and utilities. Further market research may be needed to identify the hurdles in adopting the developed technology.
- Several projects lacked adequate and more broad dissemination of the findings. More detailed dissemination plans could further help with market adoption and customer awareness.
- Lack of clear cost/benefit analysis was a common shortcoming among several projects in this topic area. The reviewers felt that this analysis is necessary to ensure competitiveness in the future.
Stakeholder Engagement
The projects have generally made efforts to engage stakeholders at some level. While some projects considered a diverse range of stakeholders and had adequate stakeholder engagement plans, others could improve on the diversity of the stakeholders and the level of engagement.
The reviewers suggested that the academic community be better engaged in project dissemination. It was recommended that internships could be one avenue to engage students and further help disseminate the results. The projects could better engage the general public, as many products are intended to be used by household-level consumers. Hence, better awareness and education of the general public could help with the future adoption of the technology. For example, it was suggested that a valuable addition to some projects could be a survey analysis, reaching out to residential building owners and utility customers who have had equivalent products or are willing to participate in demand response programs. Their feedback would help the teams better identify their potential blind spots, understand their concerns and needs, and help ensure that the developed technology meet the market needs. Similarly, groups such as the regulatory agencies, regional advocacy groups, and the utilities could be engaged in some projects.
Final Feedback
Multiple reviewers seemed to have common suggestions on the projects assigned to this topic area. When it comes to assessing the impacts of technology on grids or reducing the cost of solar generation or installation, there appears to be a lack of clear metrics for the PIs to evaluate their product. It is often unclear how the target metrics (for example, reduction in installation cost) are estimated. In some other cases, the lack of measurable metrics makes comparison with the existing technology challenging. For a technology that impacts grid operations, such as grid-interactive building technology, the project outcomes should also be assessed using industry-adopted metrics,(e.g., reliability metrics). Overall, it would be beneficial if there was more consistency on impact assessment between different projects.
Considering the goal of manufacturing, it was not clear how some projects would ensure domestic manufacturing, as different components of the technology were dependent on non-domestic manufacturing. This dependency was more evident after COVID-related delays in some projects. It would be helpful if the efforts of the project include demonstrating/discussing domestic manufacturing capacity or prospects for the developed technology.
It was suggested that future projects weave dissemination of outcomes and results into projects milestones. Participation in conferences, such as industry-oriented conferences, can also help to reach out to potential customers and disseminate the results to various stakeholders.
Installation Portfolio Review
Goals and Strategy
I interpret SETO's goals for installation industry as follows:
- Address the opportunities to reduce costs and time for installation. The projects have a strong automation bias, which is appropriate to meet the objectives.
- Continue to develop a sustainable business, with supporting technologies, to enable the growth of PV in the USA.
These objectives are appropriate but may be too focused on correcting problems with the installation process, or the labor component of installing PV. There are opportunities with people, skills, and materials that seem to be missing.
Many of the installers and material providers have established an installation process that is effective, and many of the projects have game changing potential with their technology, but may not have a strong economic argument.
Alignment with Goals
The projects selected are well aligned with the mission. RE2Inc and Terrabase are nicely aligned with the strategy. Others are nicely aligned, but exploring more niche applications.
Funding and Resource Allocation
The installation process has many opportunities for optimization that can result in lower costs and faster hook up times. Simultaneously, this is a reactive part of the supply chain and needs to respond to many of the upstream developments that are not yet mature.
It is important that the installation piece continues to be funded at appropriate levels. This part of the PV value chain has much of the cost embedded to the system owner and this needs to be optimized in the future.
Technical Diversity
There could be more technical diversity. All the projects look at new automation for installing PV modules. Several were nicely creative, like Acme Express and Phase III. All installation projects had a strong reliance on tools for automation.
Under represented is the need to keep improving on current needs and requirements, some of these are as follows:
- Alternate materials, different metals, the use of plastics, light weighting the metals, etc.
- No link to emerging designs like larger and heavier modules.
- Wire management and the electrical process. How to work with all the loose wires and connectors. Activities like hook ups were completely ignored.
- Local manufacturing of parts and components. Most installation parts are still made outside of the USA, even though this is mostly aluminum or steel.
Advancing the Mission
These projects are well matched to SETO’s mission. These are innovative and impactful technologies that can support existing and new module designs as they come to market.
Areas of Improvement
Installations are emerging with agrivoltaics, floating solar, BIPV, TIPV (transportation) and other new applications. These installation grants are still looking at conventional installation methods with the approach that these can be improved upon, but not looking at some future requirements.
SETO should assist these projects with some fundamental research tools, like FEA and other modeling. This segment of the PV industry may not have these tools or experts in their network.
Also, installations are the heavy labor component. It seems like addressing working conditions, rapid deployment of a team, training, and safety could be addressed.
In recent years, operations and maintenance (O&M) activities have increased significantly as PV systems are degrading faster than anticipated. These new technologies should begin to address the O&M aspects of their system as they are expected to survive 25 years in all kinds of climates.
The project installers should have closer links to module manufacturers. At a minimum, the module manufacturers need to understand if any of these new technologies for installation will impact the warranty.
Stakeholder Engagement
Overall, the project planners are well connected with the related partners in the installation space. Many of them seem to be connected with asset owners and EPCs. Most of the projects are acting in a collaborative manner with other members of the solar value chain. It would be good to see more activity from the module manufacturers. The module manufacturer is the owner of the warranty and often acts as the approval or rejection mechanism for installation systems. Their involvement should be greater.
The installation segment does have some codes and standards it needs to follow along with some training practices that are recognized in the industry; NABCEP, for example.
Final Feedback
It is good that SETO recognizes the installation process as an important part of the solar value chain. Many other research initiatives ignore this segment.
SETO needs to support the installation segment of the PV supply chain since it can be the easiest segment to create a sustainable portfolio of improvements. The new technologies getting support address some emerging needs, but do not address the need to use U.S.-made steel and aluminum, the common product in all projects. Perhaps this can be addressed in the future.
For installation projects, SETO needs to keep a handle on the costs. Several of these automated systems can have a higher cost than conventional installations.
Metrology Portfolio Review
Goals and Strategy
The M&C program aims to develop a U.S.-built clean energy manufacturing sector supported by a robust supply chain. This sector should deliver cost-effective clean energy products to satisfy domestic and global energy demands. M&C programs funnel funding to increase the technology readiness of the innovative concepts to secure private sector investment, which can lead to large-scale commercialization. New technologies enable efficient manufacturing, which reduces the overall price of the PV systems and readily competes with overseas manufacturers. Indigenous manufacturing of PV components also reduces supply chain uncertainties. This helps to achieve a levelized cost of energy for utility-scale PV systems at a rate less than $0.03/kWh.
Alignment with Goals
As metrology equipment are essential for providing dynamic tracking of device performance, the topics selected are coherent with the SETO’s goals. This is also important for rapid product verification of perovskite solar cells. But there are concerns about the meaningfulness of perovskite solar cell measurements under ambient conditions due to the influence of environmental factors.
Funding and Resource Allocation
The overall funding levels of M&C programs are appropriate for the proposed deliverables.
Technical Diversity
It is not clear why SETO is funding projects that are targeted to add new functionalities to the existing commercial testing tools. These companies themselves can do this. Also, at present, developing many metrology tools for perovskite module-level PV is not necessary since large-scale production tasks are only in their infancy.
Advancing the Mission
The projects address serious global PV problems and serve SETO’s mission as a whole. Some of the metrology tools under development are necessary for screening the performance of module-level binning. However, most of the module-level manufacturing is happening offshores. These tools will be beneficial to U.S. companies when they relocate onshore.
Areas of Improvement
For some projects, other companies are developing competing metrology systems. How funded companies overcome competition is not discussed in the project. It is not clear whether some of the companies secured intellectual rights for their equipment.
Stakeholder Engagement
The metrology tool developers should engage with more stakeholders in their respective areas to learn if characterization techniques are already available similar to their product. The team should work closely with DOE labs or universities to make sure there is concrete science behind their product. At least some companies are struggling to interpret the measurements from their devices. Companies should be asked to present the value proposition of their product to find the right stakeholders.
Final Feedback
Some of the projects are behind schedule. SETO should have a mechanism to monitor the pace of the projects. From the progress accomplished by some of the companies, it is hard to believe that they can realize the promised deliverable within the budget period.
The reliability of the measurement under different environmental conditions should be requested from the companies. A thorough investigation of the measured parameters should be performed in collaboration with national labs or universities. This can clear some of the inconsistencies in the device's performance. A detailed techno-economic analysis should be requested from the companies at the midway point. This should include all the raw material costs and other expenses involved in the product development.
Most companies mention that they contacted stakeholders and the stakeholders are interested in the proposed product. Often this does not mean that they are going to buy the product. Some concrete evidence showing their interest in buying the product should be encouraged from the companies.
The companies should also mention the potential risks and technical barriers associated with their project along with mitigation plans.
Multi-Use Portfolio Review
Goals and Strategy
The projects in this topic area are targeted uses of solar energy technologies that help advance the solar industry in addition to the electricity produced. The target users of the products produced are builders, ranchers, and irrigators; this brings these groups into the umbrella of potential solar technology users. Some of the groups already have interest in solar energy usage and these projects give them an opportunity to access more solar energy products. At the same time, the research is being done that advances solar technology; for example, the use and deployment of organic photovoltaics leading to attempts to improve efficiency and study lifetime of the product.
There are many ways to advance the solar industry. The approach with these project is a practical one that is likely to end up with products that diversify solar applications. Changes from these projects are incremental. However, these changes create expertise and help develop a market that has a more diversity of products to offer. In addition a supply chain is created and help grow this auxiliary aspects of the solar industry just as many companies supply parts for the auto industry.
Alignment with Goals
The defined goals and strategies for these projects are immediate and clearly defined. The projects are designed to make solar products available in the near-term to satisfy current needs, aligning well with the defined goals and strategy. The projects under review are relatively small and one has to be careful not to micromanage these projects or overburden these projects. Supplying useful outside ideas is OK, but this might take the focus off the project. From discussion with the project directors, the interaction with SETO is appreciated and well-coordinated.
Funding and Resource Allocation
The funding levels have been tailored to the goals of the projects. Once the project is near completion, additional funding may be needed, but may come from many other sources if a product is available. Initial research and development is the hardest to fund and this is what SETO provides.
SETO may consider providing a forum in which those developing these ideas can meet a more diverse group of investors. This would give investors an opportunity to see what is being developed under SETO funding and would give the product developers a chance to meet investors interested in new products. This would not be SETO promoting individual products.
Funding two or three more such projects might be worth the effort if innovative ideas for useful products are presented that also provide products that will have additional benefits outside just providing electricity.
Technical Diversity
The three areas for these projects are diverse and don’t overlap. In general, these projects cover uses in different areas of the United States. Since these are small projects with a targeted audience, it is not a relevant question to ask about any underrepresented or overrepresented area. The projects affect groups from ranchers, the agriculture industry, and architects.
Advancing the Mission
SETO has a much larger mission than what is covered by just these small projects. What these projects do for the solar industry is to develop solar products. This creates a broader market for the solar industry and helps diversify its product list. A larger market increases the production of solar equipment and this in general brings costs down.
Areas of Improvement
The solar products developed through these projects will require review by regulators before the products can be installed. Product safety and regulations vary from state to state. Developing sound regulations for use of these products is outside the SETO work. However, SETO may work with the product developers to inform them about regulation considerations that will be needed. This task is complicated by the variety of regulating agencies that differ from state to state.
These products may fail in the market because lack of capital to go into full production. The smaller companies probably need help with marketing.
There may be other organizations that can help small companies once they have a product. Maybe SETO can point the project developers in the direction of some of these other organizations. This way they are not left along to fend for themselves.
Stakeholder Engagement
In general, the immediate stakeholders are aware of these projects because they have been contacted by the companies developing the project.
The group of stakeholders that are missing are the regulators and various advocacy groups. In order to install the products being developed, rules and regulation must be implemented. This takes time and effort and is overlooked to some degree in most projects. For example, one project is developing PV panel shading for cattle. These installations have to worry about wind blowing the panels away. There may be regulations governing these structures to make sure they are not hazards during wind storms.
Getting regulators involved before the final designs are made would help reduce the number of structural changes that may be necessary.
Final Feedback
There are state groups that support emerging renewable entrepreneurs. For example, there is an Oregon program to help startups with a climate impact fund. This started in 2007 and morphed into an organization that helps renewable startup companies. The local universities are among the partners and industrial advisors help guide the program. SETO awardees could benefit from similar programs.
I think that SETO should look at some of these programs and learn how they work and see if there is a synergy in working with them. I believe these small group are aware of the federal programs but I don’t know if the federal programs make a concerted effort to help these many state efforts.
Other Projects Portfolio Review
Goals and Strategy
The SETO M&C subprogram aims to sustain and expand U.S. leadership in solar technology innovation and leverage this to reenergize onshore manufacturing, increasing domestic content, value of solar products, and job creation across the entire supply chain. The focus is to reduce technical and commercial risk, enabling private sector investment of vast sums needed to expand the industry with the speed and scale necessary to outpace foreign competitors and decarbonize the electricity grid by 2035.
During the past decade, the United States lost most of its competitiveness in upstream products as Asian manufacturers invested heavily in improved technology and capacity expansion. SETO faces the daunting challenge of leveraging their budgeted funds to influence an industry one hundred times larger. The strategy of reducing technology risk, providing expert resources for analysis and guidance, while continuing to stimulate innovation, is highly appropriate and well aligned with program goals and accelerated deployment.
Alignment with Goals
Each of these four projects builds a portion of a critically important network of expertise and analytical resources that will serve as the foundation for accelerated expansion of the solar energy industry across the entire supply chain. These resources are useful to achieving M&C’s goal of supporting businesses at all stages.
Each adds a unique spark and excitement that increase the visibility and popularity of the program. This enhances the image of the SETO program overall as both a technology leader and Federal program innovator. Innovation in program management is an important contributor to innovation in technology and industry. As such, its impact aligns well with SETO's mission.
The companies supported through these projects are all small start-ups mostly lacking their first prototype at commercial scale. They border on being too little too late to support the program’s goals for 2035. Better funded R&D in both Asia and Europe is a clear threat. With continued innovation and associated protection of their intellectual property, the U.S. companies may still thrive.
Funding and Resource Allocation
The American Made Network, Perovskite Accelerator and VELOCITI are all sized right for the existing industry needs. The existing industry aiming to build a manufacturing business around thin-film perovskites are all small businesses. As they grow, they will require added support in all the expertise and analytical services the networks are providing.
Technical Diversity
Within the scope permitted by the overall budget, SETO has selected a set of projects with primary emphasis on advancing perovskite PV. This is a very narrow focus and appropriate for the topic area to have some probability of useful technology advancement. In the event that program budgets are substantially increased, the first additions in this topic area should support other technology thrusts underway in the PV and CSP program areas.
Advancing the Mission
The scope of these projects is aligned with SETO’s mission and focused such that the output can contribute to expanding deployment of solar power; however, the scope is limited primarily to perovskite photovoltaics, which is a very small part of the solar industry as a whole.
Areas of Improvement
SETO gives every indication that they are not blind to the number of technologies they are not supporting in this area. The choice to focus on perovskites appears to offer the best support of the program overall within the constraints of a budget far too small to drive the magnitude of change the national deployment goals will require.
Past projects within the national effort in solar power R&D created several useful models to accelerate the maturation of domestic industry. In the 70s, when solar was seen as a solution to the energy crisis, the JPL project implemented block buys in stages, each putting increasing demands on product performance. These also served to field large numbers of modules for reliability testing. The PVMaT program in the '90s supported process improvements in existing production with large numbers of full-scale modules submitted as contract deliverables. Finally, the Solar America initiatives started in 2005 also saw direct impact of SETO funds on U.S. manufacturing. These were all large programs as measured by the percentage of federal funds relative to industry sales—$50 million, $500 million, and just over $1 billion industry sales in those three timeframes. Notably, U.S. companies were the leading manufacturers then. This type of specified deliverables may benefit the new businesses if funding permits.
One possible blind spot may be in evaluation of the progress of these small, mostly new companies. Protection of intellectual property, transition to larger scale prototypes, speed R&D at scale, and their ability to raise private sector investment all need close attention. Foreign acquisition of U.S. solar startups—Miasole, Heliovolt, Alta Devices, etc.—may offer lessons to protect and leverage U.S. innovation.
Stakeholder Engagement
Each of the projects in this topic area have an advisory board or industry members that include a range of stakeholders covering many of the key industries that will lead the expansion and deployment of solar power. The PACT board is particularly good in this regard with inclusion of banking and insurance representation. ESG evaluations and the associated growing industry establishing ESG ratings, such as MSCI, now have direct influence on cost of capital for investments in all sectors. While expanding deployment of solar power should promote good ESG ratings, this may not be true for each supplier. SETO and these projects should add influential collaborators with ESG focus.
Final Feedback
Several independent studies report that changing the energy infrastructure to solve climate change will require an annual global investment of about $1.5 trillion. Solar may be a third of that. Looking at the deployment challenge from the financial perspective is a critical perspective for program strategy.
Getting that amount of money to flow requires better returns for the investors. Increasing profit requires reducing the required CapEx and reducing cost of capital. Hardware costs have begun to increase for various reasons. Supply chain issues that delay or stop installation have cost investors substantial sums. Increased demand for PV and associated need for new capacity will likely block any further reduction in cost of hardware for conventional technologies. Strategies aimed to lower cost of capital may prove more fruitful. These include improving system reliability (e.g. PACT), de-risking the upstream end of the supply chain, and improving ESG ratings of suppliers across the entire chain.
.....
See more review summaries from SETO’s 2022 Peer Review.