pv magazine: How did you get started with Origami Solar?
Gregg Patterson: The one thing in a PV system that hasn’t changed or seen any real innovation in the 60-plus years that solar has been around is the module frame. It is the only component in an entire PV project that hasn’t seen radical improvements or innovation, and cost reductions have only come with significant performance loss.
We saw a big opportunity here. For a lot of reasons, which we have demonstrated, steel is just a better solution overall for module frames. But there were two fundamental issues to solve: corrosion and the weight. Because steel is much heavier than aluminum.
If you could solve those, steel is stronger, it’s more fatigue resistant, it’s much more abundant, and much more regionally available than aluminum. It delivers a compelling value proposition.
It’s taken years to figure out but we have solved both. The corrosion is solved because there are market validated corrosion coatings used in construction and automotive that are much better than galvanization, and have been validated as well for solar projects.
The weight was the biggest technical challenge: to use very little steel and achieve 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 the structural performance and maximizes the strength while using very little steel.
Looking at the weight first of all, 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’ll add about 2 kg compared to the same module with an aluminum frame – that’s for a large, utility-scale type module.
We’re working with tracker and racking companies and that weight gain is in the noise. It’s immaterial to project design and installation, and steel can double the structural performance. That is two times the load at which a module breaks. This translates to significantly higher wind ratings and safety margins.
That performance enables much lower cost overall. Modules have grown in size by 44%, on average, in the last five years and manufacturers looking to cut costs pull 35% to 40% of the aluminum out of the frame and we’re seeing breakage all over the place.
To adapt, tracker companies have to use more expensive, longer rails to make up for the structural weaknesses that aluminum frames are showing. That’s only a partial and not very efficient solution. It just moves 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 material. Steel can do it much more cost effectively.
On the residential side they’re a lot more worried about the weight, but a residential module is smaller as well. For now, we are focused on the utility-scale segment but we are developing a residential frame where the weight gain, because of the smaller size, is going to be probably a kilogram or less, and engineers are very comfortable with that.
What scale are you producing frames at today and what is the plan for scale-up?
Now we are building and creating this market. We expect to start shipping to customers in Q2 of 2025.
We have a customer pipeline of over 35 GW annual capacity in the US. Our customers in the US are internalizing the benefit of derisking the supply chain, taking the number two or three most expensive component of a module and increasing the domestic content by 5-7% for the tax credits, as well as for the performance that they can provide.
Wind and extreme weather events are becoming more common across the US and the ability to have a confident solution that is more cost effective than bolstering the tracker rails is turning out be a very compelling combo.
In terms of cost, where do you expect to be in the beginning, in comparison to a Chinese-made aluminum frame?
We’re looking at the landed-cost basis versus imported frames, because there is no scalable or cost effective domestic aluminum supply in the US. We’re pretty much at cost parity already but we’re at the top of the steel cost down curve, competing with the absolute bottom of the aluminum cost down curve.
The frame is one of the few things in a module that you can onshore, increase the supply confidence for, reduce the carbon footprint of, and improve the performance of without having to pay a premium. It’s 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 interest from customers that you have already is dependent on that?
The IRA has been a material driver of US PV module manufacturing capacity growth. However, many of these new factories have started out importing aluminum frames mostly from Southeast Asia. With duties and tariffs, a lot of them are getting detained at US customs. Aluminum frames are one of the material pain points, and manufacturers are realizing that importing these comes with significant supply-chain and cost risk.
Tariffs and duties seem to be supported by both the left and the right in the US. Derisking of the supply chain is probably one of the most important drivers for adoption and no one expects that to go away.
A significant part of the module capacity being built in the United States is from Asian suppliers setting up shop there. Is it a more difficult proposition to convince these companies about steel, given they may be more established and comfortable with aluminum frames?
It’s surprising, the feedback from tier 1 Chinese players that are moving to the US is very positive, I think for multiple reasons. They’re very sophisticated, they understand and, honestly, many of them have been trying to develop steel frames too. Every time we’ve presented our third-party test results, showing what we’ve done in terms of performance with only a trivial weight increase, their jaws drop.
We’re taking a holistic approach by talking to every major developer, every major EPC [engineering, procurement, and construction services provider], so they all get educated and that they’re comfortable.
We’re starting to get pull because the developer or asset owner of a project has a lot more focus on the cradle to grave performance, the project return on investment, and potential reduction in costs. They’re much more interested in the entire value proposition than a module maker who right now is really in a cost-down mindset.
We’re educating the entire industry and it’s going well. We expect to have at least two, if not three supply agreements in the next three months with module manufacturers, and we expect this transition to gain steam very quickly.
You mentioned a 35 GW customer pipeline – how quickly can you scale up to that kind of size?
We have been investing for three-and-a-half years on developing this optimized frame and for the last two-and-a-half years we’ve also been developing a highly scalable supply chain. We have a strategic relationship with U.S. Steel and they’re all in, they’re strategically engaged and supporting us for a domestic content solution. And we are also working closely with Arcelor Mittal outside of the US.
The bottleneck for scale is the fabrication capacity, the roll forming. It is unique in that our frame requires about 40 stages, or 40 forming stations, to fold the steel into our patented cross section. Our business model is to subcontract the roll forming to best-in-class steel fabricators, and we have developed turnkey manufacturing systems that our fabricators can just purchase. We look at them as strategic partners and together we have the ability to rapidly scale with relatively low capex [capital expenditure].
It seems you’re pretty focused on the US market for now. Are you looking to other regions as well?
Our business model and network of fabrication partners and strategic relationships with steel companies can be copy-and-pasted to every region where module manufacturing is. I expect solar will evolve to regional supply chains because it’s a much more robust and scalable model than an Asia-centric supply chain and we are ready to move quickly and cost effectively to every region.
How quickly do you see that move happening industry-wide?
Because the value is compelling and the tradeoffs are immaterial, it’s going to happen very quickly. I think it’s going to take all of 2025 and part of 2026 for steel to truly become viewed as the next-generation frame. I expect that we’ll start seeing a lot more expansion and adoption around the world in 2026.
If you look at the market today, call it 500 GW expected to reach 1 TW by 2030. For frames it’s a little over 12,000 tons of steel per gigawatt and that’s a scale that steelmakers will find compelling, and there is plenty of capacity across the steel industry.
In every region you have strong, robust steel manufacturing, while aluminum is centralized in China. You can source steel in every region and though the solar industry represents a large potential, it’s a drop in the bucket to existing steel capacity in all these regions and it is a transition with no trade-offs.
Initiative partners
This content is protected by copyright and may not be reused. If you want to cooperate with us and would like to reuse some of our content, please contact: editors@pv-magazine.com.
By submitting this form you agree to pv magazine using your data for the purposes of publishing your comment.
Your personal data will only be disclosed or otherwise transmitted to third parties for the purposes of spam filtering or if this is necessary for technical maintenance of the website. Any other transfer to third parties will not take place unless this is justified on the basis of applicable data protection regulations or if pv magazine is legally obliged to do so.
You may revoke this consent at any time with effect for the future, in which case your personal data will be deleted immediately. Otherwise, your data will be deleted if pv magazine has processed your request or the purpose of data storage is fulfilled.
Further information on data privacy can be found in our Data Protection Policy.