Rayton Solar: Legitimate Investment or Scam?
medium.com
medium.com
•It is totally possible, in terms of the physics, to do what they're proposing. All you have to do is take your ingot or boule of FZ or Cz Silicon, draw a vacuum on it, backfill it with hydrogen, and run your ion implantation head over it. Like a Durandal bomb, the upper surface is relatively undisturbed but a cutting effect occurs beneath the surface. Pop, off comes your perfect and thin wafer.
•This idea has been proposed before.
•There's nothing fundamentally wrong with a 3 micron thick silicon wafer. It takes some different processing steps to trap the light, but you can still make a decent solar cell out of it. It's not better than a 400 micron wafer in terms of efficiency, but not much worse. Also, by it being so thin, it's flexible and not so darn brittle. That reduces breakage but also makes handling a little more challenging.
•The idea fails when you consider the economics. First consider the market you're trying to break into- there's a huge glut of silicon wafer manufacturing capacity in the industry. Silicon manufacture is going gang busters, so it's not a commodity that's expensive to begin with. Solyndra bet on silicon prices staying high and that, more than any other reason, is why they failed. This is the same bet with a different topology.
•Bill Nye should perform a little math problem- consider the amount of electricity and hydrogen gas necessary to perform a cleave, 100% efficient, 100% yield, and multiply these quantities by their respective commodity costs. You will end up with a number in excess of the cost of a 500 micron wafer, or perilously close to one.
•I did the math five years ago and it made no sense then, when silicon wafers sold for over twice as much. Just because the existing technology is materially wasteful (it definitely is, generating a lot of kerf and going through a lot of expensive wiresaw blades and polishing processes) doesn't mean that it's economically wasteful.
It's not too late to pivot- I'm sure he'll have no difficulty raising the money in spite of these shortcomings. I'd be more than happy to steer this company in the right direction, contributing IP that actually delivers on these promises. All it takes is an e-mail.
* Silicon is not a rare material. It's one of the more common elements in Earth's crust. The price is largely in processing and fabrication, meaning it's going to continue to fall like a rock due to economies of scale and optimization.
The availability of Silicon is not a limitation energy prices are.
“After each closing, funds tendered by investors will be available to the company and, after the company has sold $7,000,000 worth of Common Stock, selling securityholders will be permitted to sell up to $3,000,000 worth of Common Stock.
- The "magic," if anything, is supposed to be that super-thin kerfless wafers could justify the industrial scale use of float zone silicon. FZ has often been the material of choice for lab scale fabrication of champion devices. Unlike ordinary boron doped p-type Cz silicon, it doesn't have dissolved oxygen traces from crucible walls, so it doesn't suffer B-O complex light induced degradation.
- High efficiency is still worth a premium, even if low-mid range quality cells are stuck in a brutal commoditized competition. (But high efficiency is not worth a large premium, hence the problems of even well-established high efficiency manufacturers like SunPower and Panasonic.)
- Super thin wafers are less sensitive to bulk recombination. Though this theoretical advantage is unneeded if you're starting with superpure FZ silicon in the first place.
- FZ silicon is only available in smaller diameters, so the cells wouldn't be drop-in replacements in the usual 60/72 cell module that starts with 156 mm cells.
- Silicon's resistance to damage by cosmic rays goes up dramatically as the cell thickness drops down to the few-tens-of-microns range. But that's not relevant for terrestrial use and compound semiconductors are still more efficient and more damage-resistant for space use.
Other companies that proposed to do kerfless wafering with ion implantation and failed to reach commercial success:
Twin Creeks Technologies
GT Advanced Technologies (later owners of Twin Creeks assets)
SiGen
1366 Technologies appears to have the closest-to-industrial kerfless process at present, though it's not as dramatic as as some kerfless technology concepts. I hope that their partnership with Hanwha Q Cells goes to full scale production before the money runs out.
Sorry, can you explain this metaphor?
Always wondered- why not EDM? Too slow? Hydrogen injection? Tungsten/copper contamination?
•First the dividends became the thing of the past as the companies argued that stock buybacks are more tax-efficient. The general public accepted it.
•Then the earnings per share disappeared and loss per share became standard. The argumentation was that it's better to invest in growth today and figure out profitability "some other day". The public ate it with not much questioning.
•Then it was the voting rights' turn to go with IPOs like SNAP. It raised some concerns (like being excluded from the S&P 500), but didn't stop people from investing either.
So if the general public keeps on bringing the money in despite the worsening conditions, it makes sense that someone would come up with even a bolder plan for turning this condition into their personal profit.
I blame the agency problem [1]. Too many investment decisions these days are made by someone investing someone else's money and their interests could be different from simply maximizing the returns and too many people blindly trust their money to be managed by someone else without fully understanding the underlying processes.
I agree with your analysis about the agency problem, but I also see the it as too much money chasing too few assets. Ever desperate for return, money managers will chase anything that has a return, whether it's rational or not.
2. Anecdotally, I still think EPS is by far the more widely used metric. EPS numbers can be negative so there's not much use for loss per share numbers, and most public companies have positive earnings.
3. This I agree with, SNAP's lack of voting rights is really concerning and initially SNAP didn't seem to traded at a discount because of that. It's worth noting it's down over 40% from the price it traded on the day it went public, although potentially for other reasons.
I also generally agree that people would be far better off if they educated themselves a little better on what they have their money invested in.
This matters because management is often paid in options. So, managements have an incentive to allocate capital to share buybacks to boost their pay packages instead of reinvesting money in the business. If share buybacks were illegal and the only two options were dividends and keeping the capital in the business, managements might behave very differently.
I believe we can also blame regulators for that. Most banks have extremely low rates nowadays, which is (AFAIK) deliberate to incentivize investment in the stock market. So there is a power imbalance between investors (who have no other choices) and investees, which manifests as rules shifting in favor of investees.
Now it seems he's coming to normal people with an ax to grind. It's hard to see him not profiting from this endeavor.
1. https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/02/bill-nye-censor-transge...
He did a great deal to advance STEM in the millennial generation which should not be understated but nobody is faultless. He is a great educator but I question if he really knows how best to use his platform.
When people have strange beliefs, the best way to deal with the situation is usually to talk to them on the same level, as grownups with valid beliefs. Otherwise you change no one's mind.
If we dig through your brain, we'd probably turn up a few questionable beliefs of your own. Most people just aren't that transparent.
Yes, talking and educating people is an important endeavor and one that Bill Nye has proven to be well suited. However, education and debate are not the same thing and it is easy to legitimize dangerous ideas by putting them on an equal footing with proven concepts in the context of a debate.
I have all kinda of crazy beliefs, many that I probably can't even identify myself. That doesn't mean I should waste an expert's time with debate.
If you have evidence that debating them helps, I look forward to seeing it. But from what I've seen, a credible person sharing a stage with a loon elevates the loon. Treating nonsense as sense devalues sense.
b) If proponents of proposition A are unwilling to debate proponents of proposition B then proponents of A will be look like they don't believe in their proposition. You need to be willing to defend your beliefs.
c) Debating someone does not legitimize their proposition. I believe you are legitimizing their proposition if you refuse to debate them.
For instance I don't mind if you change your opinion on the merit of debating creationists but I'm hoping to sway anyone else that reads this to my point of view.
You may be able to change some audience views but you're more dedicated than I. I've tried reason. I am a scientist. I have explained scientific method and had so many bizarre responses that I guess I've just learned to not engage when people demonstrate willful ignorance.
Honestly, it's not even always from the people you expect. Not that long ago, someone was telling me that sea levels were going to rise by 54' by 2050 and that it was 'a proven science fact.' I gave them a whole bunch of data and citations but I'm a mathematician and not a climate scientist - thus they decided I was an uninformed liar and declared themselves the victor.
I was pretty baffled by that one, actually. I'm really certain that AGW is a serious problem. I'm also really certain the sea isn't going to rise that much by 2050. I know, because I read the research and understand it well enough.
I don't know... Maybe I'm jaded and disillusioned.
Frankly this looks more like a typical case of a celebrity endorsement without enough research - which is bad, but I’d argue far less serious than the accusations you’re making.
“Trump Spoke Truth About ‘Both Sides’ In Charlottesville, And The Media Lost Their Minds”
“If We’re Tearing Down White Supremacy, Start With Planned Parenthood”
“If Google Fires Anyone Over Stereotyping, It Should Be The Employees Who Stayed Home To Cry Over A Memo”
“Dear Climate Alarmists: Now That The Paris Accord Is Settled, Please Go Away”
etc.
It's a bad scientist who stands by a theory that is incomplete.
Meanwhile, Rayton has made a down payment on a "microwave ion source" beam accelerator from Pheonix Nuclear Labs and has apparently yet to come up with the remainder of the funds to take delivery, so they are still at gen0 (proof-of-concept.)
Shameless scam for people who must be so stupid they deserve being scammed.
If the company cannot raise sufficient funds it will not succeed or will require significant additional capital infusions.
Rayton Solar is offering Common Stock in the amount of up to $50 million in this offering, but may sell much less. After $7 million is raised, the following $3 million will go to the selling securityholders. Even if the maximum amount is raised, the company is likely to need additional funds in the future in order to grow, and if it cannot raise those funds for whatever reason, including reasons outside the company’s control, such as another significant downturn in the economy, it may not survive. If the company does not sell all of the Common Stock it is offering, it will have to find other sources of funding in order to develop its business.
Even if Rayton Solar is successful in selling all of the Common Stock being offered, Rayton Solar’s proposed business will require significant additional capital infusions. Based on its current estimates, Rayton Solar will require at least $35 million to create a 54 megawatt, commonly abbreviated as MW, PV module manufacturing facility. This amount does not include the amount needed to manufacture the PV modules for sale. If planned operating levels are changed, higher operating costs encountered, lower sales revenue received or more time is needed to implement the business plan, more funds than currently anticipated may be required. Furthermore, in order to expand, the company is likely to raise funds again in the future, either by offerings of securities or through borrowing from banks or other sources. The terms of future capital infusions may include covenants that give creditors rights over the financial resources of the company or sales of equity securities that will dilute the holders of the company’s Common Stock.
The company has not yet generated any revenues.
Rayton Solar has no revenues generated since its inception. There is no assurance that the company will ever be profitable or generate sufficient revenue to pay dividends to the holders of its Common Stock. The company does not believe it will be able to generate revenues without successfully achieving target market sales for the PV module to large scale project developers, large scale retailers and wholesalers, or contractors. If the company cannot raise enough funds in this financing to manufacture and sell PV modules, it will need to successfully sell its solar cells to PV module manufacturers, which will result in less revenue to the company. If that fails, then it will need to license its current and future patents, assuming the company is granted its patents that are currently pending. Rayton Solar is dependent upon the proceeds of this offering for working capital, including for the manufacture of the PV modules.
The company is an early stage company.
As an early stage company and a company developing a new technology, Rayton Solar may encounter difficulties such as unanticipated problems relating to the development and testing of its product, initial and continuing regulatory compliance, vendor manufacturing costs, production and assembly of its product, and the competitive and regulatory environments in which the company intends to operate. It is uncertain, at this stage of its development, if the company will be able to effectively resolve any such problems, should they occur. If the company cannot resolve an unanticipated problem, it may be forced to modify or abandon its business plan.
Operations could be adversely affected by interruptions of production that are beyond the company’s control.
The company plans to manufacture its own PV modules. However, if it does not raise enough money, it will sell solar cells needed to produce the PV modules, or license the technology instead. Even if it sells solar cells, the company will rely on vendors to provide silicon ingots and other material. If there are interruptions in the ability of a vendor to provide the necessary amounts of silicon ingots, the company will not be able to meet its production.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1654124/000114420417...
Most crowd sales have unlimited discretionary use of the funds, and that doesn't mean you can't make a profit, especially if you receive something tradable back.
This is probably another reason why equity companies (or at least, purchases of their private equity) are going to go the way of the dinosaur, without liberalizing a liquid secondary market, now that there are alternatives available.
Source?
There is no dissertation on it, at best you'll find some charts showing side by side comparisons of what you get with the antiquated share company - a technology from 1600 AD - with what is available now, and you couple that with the size of the deal flow and extrapolate what can happen next
Huh, didn't think we'd reach this point this fast.
Sure, everyone loves liquidity and anyone can manage risk in an orderly two-sided market.
If there is 1) no legitimate profit-making endeavor backing your security & 2) no current bid, your security is worth exactly $0. You have faith that we needn't worry about (1) because (2) will never happen. I don't.
A secondary market which eschews many of the practices of the established markets vis a vis investor protections, and relies on information discovery and reputation, eventually will develop so much friction related to those costs as to stop being viable.
They were still developed in a vacuum. US securities laws are 90% promulgated by the SEC unilaterally, for quite some time, and even when Congress is involved the SEC still spends years warping the intent and implementation of the law. The SEC's public comment periods are a total farce and their decision is unilateral, doesn't provide more confidence in the markets, hampers interstate commerce, usually increases transaction costs and the cost of capital, and doesn't prevent scams.
There are alternatives now.
what people tolerate has nothing to do with my "literal beliefs"