1. Munich WG 3 Meeting 30 November 2010 Updating the SRA Discussion points and actions Nicola Pearsall, November 2010 Brussels

2. Munich WG 3 Meeting Reasons for Updating  The SRA refers to a specific time in regard to PV Vision and research status  The research status changes over time as advances are made and solutions are found – so the topics, targets and timescales change  The ambition in regard to PV in Europe has shifted significantly over the last two years (SEII and other initiatives)  A revised SRA is needed to reflect the changes in ambition and to reset targets, timescales and priorities Brussels 30 November 2010

3. Munich WG 3 Meeting Proposed methodology  Revise the introductory chapter(s) to reflect the new vision  Decide in WG3 what this implies for the overall research priorities and timescales  Reconvene the technology working groups to revise each technology section  Revise any other chapters as required – WG3 member appointed to lead each one  Finalise draft within WG3  Consult with Steering Committee and Mirror Group to finalise document Brussels 30 November 2010

4. Munich WG 3 Meeting Discussion Points (1) – retaining the existing format  The current format consists of the Introduction (including the vision to which the SRA refers), Governing Principles of the SRA, Development Options, Perspectives and Needs (by technology group) and a section on Research Funding  There are two operational advantages of retaining the current format:  It allows us to assign working groups to each chapter immediately and so reduced the timeline for completion of the updating  We can retain the existing layout, so reducing administrative effort, and make the revised SRA compatible with the first edition  Comments received so far:  Several comments approving retention of structure  Missing analyses of competition and activities in other countries  Needs priorities that are set to meet the SEII targets  Reduce Executive Summary to less than 2 pages  Need more on funding possibilities for new start ups, demo and pilot activities Brussels 30 November 2010

5. Munich WG 3 Meeting  Comments received so far:  Storage and grid technologies for low and high penetration in a long term scenario might be a separate sector  Move Concentrator Technologies section to before the Emerging and Novel Technologies  Comment that the Emerging technologies should be included in Thin Film section  Possibly single section for all silicon based cells  Combine Thin Films, Concentrators and Emerging Technologies into two sections: Enabling Technologies and High Efficiency Devices Brussels Discussion Points (2) – technology sector headings 30 November 2010

6. Munich WG 3 Meeting Discussion Points (3) – which sections require updating?  Comments received so far:  Explanation of general issues needed to justify investment in PV at this time (why PV is important in the future, realistic deployment scenarios, influence of R&D on the deployment of PV, explain how cost of PV R&D can be justified against market growth)  BOS, safety, bankability (demonstration sites) not well represented  Feedstock, decrease of waste and reduction of process steps for wafer based crystalline silicon  Extend BOS to include storage and grid connectivity Brussels 30 November 2010

7. Munich WG 3 Meeting  Short term research dedicated to competitiveness of European Industry (direct link here to SEII)  No exclusivity (i.e. all technologies included)  Need for funding of short, medium and long term research  Use the same cost targets for all technologies (flat plate), separated into module and BOS  Use combined module/BOS cost target for concentrator systems, but also common across all approaches Brussels Discussion Points (4) – governing principles 30 November 2010

8. Munich WG 3 Meeting  The SRA should be compatible with the SEII overall vision and its Implementation Plans, but also covers other research outside the SEII  It would also be helpful to use the SRA to inform the ongoing SEII implementation plans after the first two years  Comments received so far:  Needs priorities that are set to meet the SEII targets  Synchronise short term objectives with SEII Implementation Plan – medium term should be partially compatible and long term independent of SEII  Compare table of contents for both documents and try to harmonise the structure Brussels Discussion Points (5) – compatibility with SEII 30 November 2010

9. Munich WG 3 Meeting  Comments received so far:  Wafer based crystalline technology: Harsharn Tathgar  Existing thin film: Marko Topic  Emerging and novel technologies  Concentrator technologies: Stephen Taylor (III-V devices)  BOS components and systems: Marko Topic  Standards, quality assurance, safety and environmental aspects  Socio-economic and enabling research Brussels Discussion Points (6) – sector teams 30 November 2010