There’s real value to be gained from bifacial solar modules. But there may be a chicken-and-egg problem when it comes to getting deals done.
The solar industry hates stasis, which is exemplified by industry members’ self-proclaimed rides on “the solar coaster.” Solar trade shows and conferences are filled with companies looking to provide solar with its “next big thing.”
One of solar energy’s (literal) shiny new objects — bifacial modules — has been a hot topic at these conferences and in news articles for a few years now. Until recently, most of the potential benefits of bifacial modules have remained… potential.
However, bifacial modules are starting to transition from theory into reality, as more projects around the world and in the United States specify bifacial modules, reach financing and construction, and begin operation.
We get it. You probably think you’ve read this story before. You’re expecting another article about the existence of bifacial modules (with accompanying diagrams), reviewing how there’s some benefit of the technology while expressing a decent amount of uncertainty, and a conclusion of “I guess we’ll wait see what happens with this promising new technology.”
We’ll cover all those bases. But this time, we’ll also dig into the wonky details of how implementing this technology impacts a real structured finance model, how a debt provider’s confidence in that energy benefit affects returns, and what you really need out of your bifacial project to generate positive returns.
It’s time to grab your bifocals and look at (both of) the bright sides.
Introduction to the technology
Bifacial solar photovoltaic modules produce energy on both sides of the module. Energy is captured on the back of the module by collecting sunlight on its backside that was reflected off the ground.
There’s minimal doubt that there will be some benefit to project performance due to energy from the backside of the module (known as bifacial gain), but the question remains: exactly how much?
While a relatively standardized process for energy modeling has been developed and accepted for monofacial systems, this has not yet happened for bifacial systems.
The main roadblock to standardization has been that their implementation greatly increases the importance of a few variables that have a negligible effect on monofacial systems and are thus less well studied, such as albedo (the measure of ground reflectance), and the shading and mismatch created by the racking structure underneath the modules.
While a number of field test sites have been installed in the last few months, operational data from those projects to support better energy modeling practices is months away.
Few analyses have looked at how this uncertainty impacts the actual financing of a project. The increase in cost, energy generation, and uncertainty on that energy generation, will affect all three of the main parties in a structured transaction: sponsor equity, debt and tax equity.
We’ll examine these impacts first in a general sense, and then through the lens of a real project.
The juicy model details
We’ll examine an existing development project with monofacial modules, then assume the substitution of bifacial modules of an equivalent frontside power rating while holding all other project variables constant. We then assume a market-based module cost increase for a project in 2020, as well as an “EPC adder” taking into account second-order impacts of adding bifacial modules, as shown below.
Source: greentechmedia
