Transcript PV Recycling Market Research Preliminary Results May 20

PV Recycling Market Research
Preliminary Results
Selected Slides
June 2009
Jennifer Woolwich, MA, CPHQ, CSSBB
[email protected]
Methodology
• Population
All (54) module manufacturers with at least one UL
certified module as of March 30, 2009
• Tool
Interview schedule pilot tested and finalized, content
based on “Study on the Development of a Take Back
Recovery System for Photovoltaic Products,” BMU, EPIA,
and BSW-Solar, November 2007
• Contact
Top management initial contact and follow-up via
telephone and e-mail from April 1, 2009 to June 4, 2009
Response
Population, N=54
Contacted
Being Contacted
Telephone Not Answered
OEM Duplication
Total
42
9
2
1
54
78%
16%
4%
2%
100%
• Of the 54 manufacturers 42
were contacted, 9 being
contacted, no answer at 2, and
1 duplicate
29
5
8
42
69%
12%
19%
100%
• Of the 42 manufacturers
contacted, 29 completed the
interview, 5 pending, and 8 not
willing to participate
Contacted, N=42
Completed
Pending
Not Participate
Total
Response
Response Rate
Adjusted Response Rate
Contacted N Rate
29
54 54%
29
42 69%
• Adjusted response rate of 69%
Manufacturer Descriptives, N=29
• Module type produced
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
19 monocrystalline
25 polycrystalline
4 amorphous silicon
3 metalurgical silicon
2 crystalline thin film
1 CIGS
1 CdTe
– 12 manufacture in the United States
– 17 manufacture elsewhere
Responsible for Module Collection
Multiple Responses Collected
Respondents, N=29
Producer
End User
Independent Third Party
Collection System Not Needed
16
7
13
0
55%
24%
45%
0%
• Over half of the respondents stated producers
should be responsible for module collection
• Some indicated this should be in coordination
with an independent third party
• 100% think a collection system is needed
Responsible for Collection Financing
Multiple Responses Collected
Respondents, N=29
Producer
End User
Independent Third Party
Someone Else
15
8
5
5
52%
28%
17%
17%
• Over half of the respondents stated producers
should be responsible for collection financing
• Of the 5 stating someone else should provide
funding, 2 mentioned government agencies
Responsible for Treatment Financing
Multiple Responses Collected
Respondents, N=29
Producer
End User
Independent Third Party
Someone Else
Don't Know
13
4
10
4
1
45%
14%
34%
14%
3%
• Almost half of the respondents stated
producers should be responsible for treatment
financing
• Some mentioned who ever financially benefits
from the sale of reclaimed material should
finance module treatment
Financing Take Back System
Multiple Responses Collected
Respondents, N=29
Fixed Annual Contract
Payment Per Collected Module
Payment Based on Material Value
Payment Based on Wattage Sold
Annuity Based on Sales
Don't Know
3
4
2
2
3
11
10%
14%
7%
7%
10%
38%
• Methods of financing a take back system need
further discussion and exploration
• Most respondents mentioned the cost should
be proportionally distributed in relation to actual
production not capacity
Manufacturers’ Consortium
Respondents, N=29
Yes
No
Don't Know
19
1
9
66%
3%
31%
• 66% of participants were in favor of being a
member of a fee based consortium that
develops and implements policy for a take
back and recycling program
• Further exploration is needed for those who did
not know
Additional data available upon request.
web: pvrecycling.com
email: [email protected]
phone: 520.245.8465