
Rayton Solar: Legitimate Investment or Scam? - johncoogan
https://medium.com/truth-review/rayton-solar-legitimate-scam-in-between-7c8e5295265d
======
mchannon
As an expert on silicon and solar, the technology is doomed- here's why:

•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.

~~~
philipkglass
I agree that this is going to be a commercial failure even if funded.
Additional stray observations:

\- 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.

~~~
baking
1366 Technologies's full-scale plant in Western New York has yet to break
ground. The state finally broke ground two days ago on some minor
infrastructure work for the site, but 1366 might be held up by financing
issues due to worries that Trump won't follow through on a DOE $150M loan
guarantee.

------
john_moscow
The stock market in general is moving in a strange direction in the past
decade.

•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.

1\.
[http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/agencyproblem.asp](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/agencyproblem.asp)

~~~
JackFr
I don't think you're completely correct about EPS in the broader market, (but
correct in the headline names). The rest I agree with completely. What's
surprising to me is that there wasn't some sort of retrenchment after the
2007-8 crisis.

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.

~~~
csomar
We are still too early in the bubble cycle. The returns are higher every year
but they are linear. Wait until the public comes (free money?) and discover
this; and then you get a parabolic market run and a subsequent crash.

------
matt_wulfeck
Regarding Bill Nye, this makes me sad. He really was instrumental in making
science fun and exciting when I was young. In his post TV life he's become
just another political idealogue. Even doing as far as censuring[1] his own TV
show when the science contradicts his social justice message.

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...](https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/02/bill-nye-censor-transgender-
ideology/)

~~~
mulmen
He also provided a platform to legitimize creationism by debating it as if it
is a valid explanation of how the world came to be. I understand the desire to
promote debate but I think he fell into the false balance trap.

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.

~~~
sillysaurus3
You're just as far in the opposite direction, though.

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.

~~~
wpietri
Ardent creationists are not just people with strange beliefs. They are people
who have built their lives around promoting and defending harmfully bad ideas.

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.

------
baking
They've been advertising heavily on Facebook. Companies like Alta Devices and
1366 Technologies have been making kerfless photovoltaics for almost ten years
now and are up to gen4 and gen3 production lines respectively, and have been
selling in quantity to actual customers.

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.)

------
mediocrejoker
I'm not qualified to comment on the financial accusations but if accurate they
seem quite damning. However I'm not sure I like the way the author of this
piece cites usernames from the _comments of the same article_ as experts in
the field of solar technology.

~~~
baking
As one of the "experts" quoted I agree, but I'll take it as meaning "from
someone who knows a little more than me about the subject."

------
aswanson
Very sad to see professors at UCLA acting as directors for this, if its a
scam. I'm hoping they're just ignorant of the economics and not committing
willful fraud.

~~~
s17n
To be honest, I'd feel better if it was willful fraud.

------
simon_acca
The EEVBlog also has a skeptical look on Rayton:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbYtn420QBM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbYtn420QBM)

------
anovikov
Hopeless, ridiculous scam from top to bottom! Silicon isn't even a big factor
in price of solar cells. It is dirt cheap nowadays, there is less than 1 cent
worth of silicon in 1 watt of solar cell (which is worth 22-24 cents
nowadays). And that is a small fraction of cost of watt of installed system
($1-$6 depending on type, size, country, and who you ask). That means, for
solar industry, that is at best fraction of percent level of improvement.

Shameless scam for people who must be so stupid they deserve being scammed.

~~~
xutopia
Some kindhearted people aren't very smart. I'm not sure anyone deserves being
scammed aside from the scammers themselves.

------
brianbreslin
Is it legal to make investment advice like this and not be a series 7 (or
whatever number) licensed broker/dealer? Is the author a stock broker?

------
lgats
Here are some important facts from the SEC filing:

 __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...](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1654124/000114420417002964/v456948_253g2.htm)

------
andrewfromx
isn't the point then, Rayton is a cry for help from Bill Nye? as in, he wants
the world's best experts on silicon and solar to come together and work 24/7
on this problem.

------
gregpardo
Not surprising. Bill Nye is a business man not a scientist.

------
ringaroundthetx
Its just a liberal contract, and you just have to hope they won't do it the
way this article flags.

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.

~~~
JackFr
Existing securities laws didn't develop in a vacuum - they were a response to
real problems in capital markets. Receiving something tradeable presupposes a
counter party to trade with. Those likely will be in short supply once you've
bought a lemon.

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.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
FYI, you're arguing with someone who literally believes investor protections
aren't necessary for liquid investments [1].

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15134630](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15134630)

~~~
ringaroundthetx
thats not what that says

what people tolerate has nothing to do with my "literal beliefs"

