pv magazine: How did you start with Origami Solar?
Greg Patterson: The only thing in a PV system that has not changed or seen any real innovation in the more than sixty years that solar energy has been around is the module frame. It is the only component in an entire PV project that has not seen radical improvements or innovation, and cost cutting has only led to significant performance losses.
We saw a great opportunity here. For many reasons, which we have shown, steel is simply a better solution for module frames in general. But two fundamental problems had to be solved: corrosion and weight. Because steel is much heavier than aluminum.
If you could solve that one: Steel is stronger, more resistant to fatigue, much more abundant and much more regionally available than aluminum. It delivers a compelling value proposition.
It took years to figure it out, but we solved both. The corrosion has been resolved because market-validated corrosion coatings are used in construction and automotive that are far superior to galvanization, and have also been validated for solar projects.
Weight was the biggest technical challenge: using very little steel and achieving the required structural performance for a module frame. That’s where we came up with the name Origami, because you need to create a folded cross-section that achieves structural performance and maximizes strength while using very little steel.
First, considering weight, how do your steel frames compare to typical aluminum products?
They’re not the same, but we understand the weight gain. For a module that weighs 35 kg, we add about 2 kg compared to the same module with an aluminum frame – that’s for a large utility-scale module.
We work with tracker and rack companies and that weight gain is in the noise. It is of no importance to the design and installation of projects, and steel can double the structural performance. That is twice the load at which a module breaks. This translates into significantly higher wind values and safety margins.
That performance allows for much lower costs overall. Modules have grown an average of 44% in size over the past five years and manufacturers looking to save costs are removing 35% to 40% of the aluminum from the frame and we see breakage everywhere.
To adapt, tracker companies must use more expensive, longer rails to compensate for the structural weaknesses that aluminum frames exhibit. That is only a partial and not very efficient solution. It only shifts the cost from the module to the mounting system.
A better frame is the most cost effective solution and if you threw that much more aluminum back into the frames the cost increase would be significant. This can be done much more cost-effectively with steel.
On the residential side they are much more concerned about weight, but a residential module is also smaller. For now we are focusing on the utility segment, but we are developing a residential frame where the weight gain, due to the smaller size, will probably be a kilogram or less, and engineers are very comfortable with that.
On what scale are you currently producing frames and what is the plan for scaling up?
Now we are building and creating this market. We expect to begin shipping to customers in the second quarter of 2025.
We have a customer pipeline of more than 35 GW annual capacity in the US. Our US customers are internalizing the benefit of reducing supply chain risk, taking the two or three most expensive part of a module and increasing the domestic content by 5-7% for the tax benefits, as well as for the performance they deliver. can offer.
Wind and extreme weather events are becoming increasingly common in the US and the ability to have a confident solution that is more cost-effective than reinforcing the tracker rails is proving to be a very attractive combination.
Where do you expect to be cost-wise initially, compared to a Chinese-made aluminum frame?
We look at the landed-cost basis versus imported frames because there is no scalable or cost-effective domestic aluminum offering in the US. Costs are already pretty much the same, but we are at the top of the downward curve of steel costs, competing with the absolute bottom of the downward curve of aluminum costs.
The frame is one of the few things in a module that allows you to increase supply confidence, reduce carbon footprint and improve performance onshore without having to pay a premium. It is the lowest hanging fruit as people adapt to a less risky and more regionalized solar supply chain.
How important is the US Inflation Reduction Act to these plans and how much of the customer interest you already have depends on it?
The IRA has been a key driver of the growth of U.S. PV module manufacturing capacity. However, many of these new factories have started importing aluminum frames, mainly from Southeast Asia. With import duties and tariffs, many of them are being held at US Customs. Aluminum frames are one of the material pain points, and manufacturers are realizing that importing them poses significant supply chain and cost risks.
Tariffs and tariffs appear to be supported by both the left and the right in the US. Reducing supply chain risk is likely one of the key drivers for adoption and no one expects this to go away.
A significant portion of the module capacity built in the United States comes from Asian suppliers based there. Is it harder to convince these companies to switch to steel, as they may be more established and more comfortable with aluminum frames?
Surprisingly, the feedback from Chinese tier 1 players moving to the US has been very positive, I think for several reasons. They are very advanced, they understand that, and honestly many of them have also tried to develop steel frames. Every time we presented our third-party test results showing what we did in terms of performance with only a trivial weight gain, their jaws dropped.
We take a holistic approach by talking to every major developer and every major EPC [engineering, procurement, and construction services provider]so that they all receive training and that they feel comfortable.
We are starting to gain popularity because the developer or asset owner of a project has much more focus on end-to-end performance, the project’s return on investment and potential cost reduction. They’re much more interested in the whole value proposition than a module maker who really has a cost-cutting mentality at this point.
We train the entire sector and things are going well. We expect to have at least two, if not three, supply agreements with module manufacturers in the next three months, and we expect this transition to gain momentum very quickly.
You mentioned a 35 GW customer pipeline. How quickly can you scale to such a size?
We invested three and a half years developing this optimized frame and over the past two and a half years we have also developed a highly scalable supply chain. We have a strategic relationship with US Steel and they’re all involved, they’re strategically involved and supporting us for a domestic content solution. And we also work closely with Arcelor Mittal outside the US.
The bottleneck for scale is production capacity, rolling. It is unique in that our frame requires approximately 40 steps or 40 forming stations to fold the steel into our proprietary cross-section. Our business model is to outsource roll forming to the best steel manufacturers, and we have developed turnkey production systems that our manufacturers can simply purchase. We view them as strategic partners and together we have the ability to scale quickly with relatively low capital investments [capital expenditure].
It seems like you’re pretty focused on the US market for now. Are you also looking at other regions?
Our business model and network of manufacturing partners and strategic relationships with steel companies can be copied and pasted to any region where modules are produced. I expect solar to move towards regional supply chains as it is a much more robust and scalable model than an Asia-centric supply chain and we are ready to move into any region quickly and cost-effectively.
How quickly do you see this move happening across the industry?
Because the value is compelling and the tradeoffs don’t matter, it will happen very quickly. I think it will take all of 2025 and part of 2026 before steel is really seen as the next generation frame. I expect that in 2026 we will see much more expansion and adoption worldwide.
If you look at the current market, call it 500 GW, which is expected to reach 1 TW by 2030. For frames that’s just over 12,000 tonnes of steel per gigawatt and that’s a scale that steelmakers will find attractive, and there is plenty of capacity around the world. steel industry.
In every region you have strong, robust steel production, while aluminum is centralized in China. You can buy steel in any region and while the solar industry represents great potential, it is a drop in the ocean for the existing steel capacity in all these regions and is a transition without compromise.
Initiative partners
pv magazine thanks our UP initiative partners for their guidance and continued commitment to sustainability across the solar supply chain.
This content is copyrighted and may not be reused. If you would like to collaborate with us and reuse some of our content, please contact: editors@pv-magazine.com.
Popular content
