In the wave of electricity market liberalization, maximizing the value of photovoltaic (PV) systems emerges as the optimal solution. The Chinese photovoltaic industry once proudly boasted a “domestic production rate exceeding 90%,” but this achievement now masks a significant collective loss across the entire supply chain. While the installed capacity of solar energy maintained a growth rate of over 20% in 2024, this increase has not translated into profits for companies. The prices along the supply chain, particularly for silicon materials, wafers, and modules, have continued to decline. The average price of N-type modules dropped from 1.8 yuan/W at the beginning of 2023 to 0.7 yuan/W today, a decrease of over 60%. More critically, during bulk procurement by major users, the lowest bid for N-type bifacial modules was only 0.655 yuan/W. This situation has forced many photovoltaic companies, once leaders of an emerging industry, into a state of stagnation. The primary reasons for this downturn are chaotic competition and brutal internal struggles in both technology and business practices.
1. Efficiency-focused assessments lack commercial logic
The notice released by Shaanxi Province regarding the development and construction of wind and solar projects for 2025 explicitly states that the conversion efficiency for components in the photovoltaic leader program must exceed 24.2%, evaluating only front-side efficiency while disregarding bifacial ratios and other comprehensive generation metrics. Similarly, in large-scale projects combining offshore wind and solar energy in Shanghai, the threshold for full marks on component efficiency is set at over 24%. Under these tender policies, component procurement is almost exclusively directed towards a few select companies, leaving 90% of new production capacity unable to meet these conditions. This approach to embedding customized policy indicators may result in targeted procurement in the short term, while potentially pushing the industry into a cycle of capacity oversupply in the long term.
2. Comprehensive generation benefits are more important
In reality, both TBC (Tunnel Oxide Passivated Cell) and N-TOPCon are part of the broader TOPCon technology category. BC technology moves the electrodes to the back, increasing front-side efficiency while sacrificing rear-side generation, akin to switching hands. In actual applications, ground-based power stations are affected by temperature fluctuations, low light conditions, and surface reflectivity (for example, surface reflectivity in desert areas can reach 35%), making rear-side generation a vital component. For instance, TOPCon modules have a bifacial ratio of 85%, which is 15% higher than that of BC modules. Under equal reflectivity, the power generation gain per watt can reach between 0.4% and 1.09%. In terms of cost, the average procurement price for BC modules currently hovers around 0.8 yuan/W, which is 14% more expensive than TOPCon modules at 0.7 yuan/W. While BC modules incur higher costs per kilowatt-hour, companies must also bear increased procurement expenses.
“Efficiency worship” leads to resource waste
1. Structural waste in existing capacity
From 2023 to 2024, HJT (Heterojunction Technology) and TOPCON are expected to become the main drivers of capacity expansion, with domestic planned capacity exceeding 900 GW. If policy guidance continues to focus solely on efficiency without considering comprehensive generation benefits, it will lead to irrational market behavior, resulting in the waste of new capacity worth hundreds of billions.
2. Wasted resources for future technology development
Focusing on BC technology, which has higher front-side efficiency, will push companies to allocate their R&D resources towards this technology, squeezing out development space for more promising technologies such as tandem and perovskite solutions. With new production lines in photovoltaic companies having been operational for just over a year, the need to reinvest for BC due to policy mandates will limit funding for next-generation technology development. This trend risks pushing China’s photovoltaic sector into a state of “contract manufacturing,” undermining its foundational innovation capabilities.
Seeking to maximize system value is the right approach
In the context of electricity market liberalization, the time and spatial characteristics of photovoltaic generation significantly impact electricity prices. During peak sunlight hours, the abundance of solar energy often leads to an oversupply in the market, causing prices to drop. To adapt to these market-driven price fluctuations and enhance the economic viability of photovoltaic projects, it is essential to optimize the power generation of solar modules during early morning and late afternoon hours. Increasing the bifacial ratio can effectively boost power generation during these periods, aligning better with current market demands. Therefore, in the upgrade of policy evaluation systems, it is advisable to adequately consider the value brought by bifacial ratios. A comprehensive efficiency metric reflecting the generation capacity of modules, such as “comprehensive efficiency (front + back) ≥26%,” should be established as a core indicator for advanced assessments, encouraging companies to continuously improve their modules’ overall performance.
Moreover, during the design phase, greater emphasis should be placed on the system’s value. Utilizing tracking mounts can significantly enhance power generation during early and late hours, thereby increasing project profitability. Additionally, rationally adjusting the orientation of mounts according to the geographical environment and light conditions of different provinces can further enhance power generation and project returns. Thus, it is recommended to return to the essence of market-oriented principles and reconstruct the efficiency evaluation system, incorporating bifacial ratios, attenuation rates, temperature coefficients, and other factors into the “comprehensive generation efficiency” indicator to replace the singular focus on front-side efficiency assessments. It is crucial to strictly control the establishment of exclusive thresholds under the guise of “technological advancement,” creating a technology evaluation mechanism led by third-party organizations to avoid industry upheaval caused by one-size-fits-all solutions. At the same time, amidst the backdrop of electricity market transactions, attention should be paid to the cost per kilowatt-hour. Moving forward, the photovoltaic industry must urgently shift from “efficiency competition” to a “cost-per-kilowatt-hour orientation.” Only by breaking free from single-dimensional indicators and encouraging diverse, advantageous solutions can the industry avoid repeating the tragic consequences of past “bottlenecks.”
