Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Email This Story
Share This Story
Reader Comments (23)
Image Gallery (1)
Add to Bookmarks
Printer Friendly Version
The solar industry is ripe for the support of the equipment and materials supply chain to drive down the cost of photovoltaic (PV) technology, said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).
"The single biggest factor to bring down solar cost per watt is moving to larger substrates, on tools whose development was paid for by the folks who make television sets."
-- Charlie Gay, Applied Materials Inc., corporate vice president and general manager of the solar business group
"If we can get the brain trust of the semiconductor industry behind solar, we can bring down costs and become mainstream," he said.
The global solar industry spent some $2.8 billion on plants and equipment in 2006, according to Solarbuzz's 2007 Marketbuzz report, as it added 548 MW, for a 33 percent jump in capacity, to a worldwide total of 2204 MW. Solar sales reached $10.6 billion last year and will likely grow to somewhere between $18 and $31 billion by 2011, for a 170 to 290 percent jump.
"Much of this forecasted growth depends on lower costs, and that depends on such things as deposition tools with better yields and higher throughput, economical slicing and handling tools for thinner wafers, better coating materials and lower cost polysilicon," Resch said in a recent statement.
He elaborated on these opportunities in "Solar Energy: The Next Great Growth Opportunity for the Semiconductor Industry," his keynote speech at Semicon West 2007, which was held this week at the Moscone Center in San Francisco.
"The single biggest factor to bring down solar cost per watt is moving to larger substrates, on tools whose development was paid for by the folks who make television sets," said Charlie Gay, corporate vice president and general manager of Applied Materials Inc.'s solar business group.
Gay presented "Issues of Going to Gigawatt-scale Solar Manufacturing" at renewable energy sessions during Semicon's Emerging Technologies & Markets TechXPOT on Thursday.
Applied Materials has said the large substrates could potentially bring thin-film solar costs down by 25 percent. But Gay said he sees a continuum of further cost reductions to come from other suppliers scaling up near big-thin film solar plants, from the makers of clear solar soda lime glass to gas suppliers providing the silane and hydrogen precursors, to those making the environmental control and packaging equipment.
"It's all about economies of scale," he said. "There's a wider range of opportunities supplying the solar industry with the same equipment and materials as the semiconductor industry, because it's earlier on in the maturation of the industry. It's like the integrated circuit industry years ago, when the makers were doing a lot of their own equipment design. But now the industry is growing so fast there's no longer time to do it all in-house."
New materials are another area for reducing costs, since materials account for 60 percent of the typical cost of a conventional wafer-based solar cell, said Gaetan Borgers, Dow Corning's global solar industry director.
Now that solar is becoming a significant market, suppliers are starting to invest in developing products tailored to its specific needs, he said, "so there was no focus on the market. You had nine-nines purity silicon for the semiconductor industry, and two-nines for the chemical industry. Now there is a big new market emerging that needs something in between."
Borgers said Corning is stepping into that gap with a lower-cost, lower-purity solar silicon feedstock made with a metallurgical process that can be blended into high-purity polysilicon without impacting cell performance. He said it also plans to introduce, possibly in 2008, a lower-cost encapsulant of silicone that may allow higher efficiency cell performance and that may last longer.
Other companies applying new kinds of nanoscale manufacturing technologies to make solar cells more affordable: Miasolé of Santa Clara, Calif., said it will start volume production of its sputtered thin-film copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) on flexible stainless-steel foil sometime later this year.
President and CEO Dave Pearce said the company is "running the first vacuum system every day and now bringing up a second roll-to-roll coater" but that he is waiting for higher efficiencies before starting commercial production. Although the company's R&D tool reportedly consistently makes cells of 8 to 10 percent efficiency on 5 ft 2 in substrates, the production roll coaters are still running mostly in the 4 to 6 percent range.
"But that's about a point higher than last month," Pearce said. "I'm comfortable we can get 8 to 10 percent this year. I think we'll get there this quarter."
The atomic-level control of the tricky deposition of CIGS film is key to efficient performance, he said. Miasolé's approach relies on much of its control of the thin-film sputter target materials, then uses multiple rotating targets to control the gradient of composition through the CIGS film at the nanoscale.
Pearce said the low-cost production tools and high-speed process—about an hour from start to the final testing of the cells—should allow the nanoscale CIGS film to bring solar costs down dramatically.
Other companies see opportunity in supplying their nanotechnology products to solar cell makers. Eikos Inc. of Franklin, Massachusetts, reports good results using its carbon nanotube (CNT) film as a transparent conductor for organic solar cells, since the naturally hole-conducting CNT films are the p-type transparent electrode the cells require. The binder-infused CNT film is applied at ambient temperatures, so it is well-suited to the heat-sensitive organics and is flexible enough for use on its targeted applications such as cloth and tents.
NanoGram Corp. is also turning its nanoparticle deposition technology to the development of solar cells. The Milpitas, California, company creates nanoparticles by laser pyrolysis, using a laser to provide uniform initiation of the chemical reaction to condense compounds from the gas phase into nanoparticle form.
Particles produced in this continuous process are deposited directly onto a substrate, at thicknesses up to 30 µms in one pass, at throughput potentially high enough to be practical for production of thick-film coatings. The company is working on depositing crystalline silicon thick film for solar cells—potentially avoiding the contamination from the substrate usually generated at the high temperatures needed to crystallize silicon—to allow higher efficiencies than amorphous thin film without the cost of silicon wafers.
This article was adapted from the original July 17th article on Photonics.com and was republished with permission from Photonics.com.
If industry could produce a 500w panel for $500 to $1000, I think you'd have a demand curve that would go potentially strait up. I realize it may be a couple of more years before the industry could get to this point if they wanted to get to this point. However as I read about efficiency, increased cost, watts per panel, etc., who is really asking the consumer, what would you be willing to pay and what would you expect.
Here's a suggested next x-prize challenge. An organization needs to produce a 500 watt solar panel for $500 within a profitable business model. I'll buy 20. If we took this consumer approach and funded a trust for the prize of everyone waiting to buy, we could easily raise a 10 million dollar prize. Anyone in?
I'm probably the only one in the country or maybe the world that thinks solar should not come down more in price. I think the best answer is for fossil fuels and nuclear to stop getting subsidies. Then peope will see how good the cost of solar and wind are.
I also feel if we have lots of cheap solar people will not be efficient. Even clean renewable power can be wasted. Let's just get people to see how valuable clean energy is that uses not water and makes no pollution. It's here now and with efficiency it works better than any othr source of energy.
Let's work on education and not on waiting for cheaper power. We have the answers so let's use them and fight to stop waste and subsidies. We don't want cheap power we want clean energy that is sustainable.
Jiminy solar Stack
"But the cost to the end consumer has risen over the last 5 years dispite increased production"
That is true however there is no free market in PV industry - demand outstrips supply by big margin hence there is no competition that is why the prices are so high. When the supply catch up with the demant the prices will fall. The technology havent stopped improving and wont stop soon - now the problems are economical.
This is an excellent read on the state of the industry.
The US auto industry, chemical industry and semiconductor/optics industry has all the equipment sitting idle due to slowdowns in their respective industries. If everyone of these players understood that their equipment and services are in need and tooled up for the renewables, they will find buyers waiting in line for the raw materials. And as these processes become more streamlined prices will drop and the end consumer will become more acceptable to purchasing. And if these industries would understand the value of recycling as a resource for some of those materials they may find that a sustainable economy is on the horizon, how quickly it will appear is up to them.
There must be a simple calcuation that shows where the breakeven point per solar generated K-watt lies realative to current meter based electricity.
If we all knew where that point is, we could all calcuation how many fold solar systems have to drop in price for them to be economically justifiable.
I'd appreciate any posts on "breakeven logic."
Thanks,
j
Solar is at top of the energy density tree. It's the least condensing of power per square meter to harness beside the fact the sunlight is avialable at its peak intensity only few hours per day. Therefore the mojor road block to make it "cheap" is the cost of material. The title of the blog says it all: It needs ---- BRAIN --- Otherwise . . .
Phi (www.neo-aerodynamic.com)
Maybe the cost of production in China and the Phillipines is such that low wages are the key to a competitive edge rather than any technical advantage. Does anyone in China or the Phillipines check whether the employees aren't slaves or that industrial waste isn't dumped into the nearest river? Some of the manufacturers want market share and western environmental social concerns are not mentioned.
Hi Jeff.
It's depend on your cost per kwh. in my case it is $0.12 (12 cent).
This mean that if a solar pannel is producing 1watt (usually they cite the rarely peak) you will save $0,00012 per peak hour.
After this is point is to have hours of good estimate number of 'GOOD sunlight' per day then per year. In my case I take generously 4 hours per day of good sunghlight. Then 1 watt solar cell will save me (4 * 365 * 0.00012)= $0.1752 per year.
This also mean that it will you a 17.5% return if 1W solar pannel cost $1.00 installed (it should include assessory minus government incentives?).
Then it's up to one's perspective to decide if it's good to do so.
Good luck and have fund.
Phi (neo-aerodynamic.com)
HI Jeff and Eugen.
I hope I may not cause you misunderstanding .
My firgure is 17.5% IF it is $1.00/W
from then it would be
(%17.5/2) =%8.75 if it is $2.00 /watt and
%17.5/3 =%5.84 if it is $3.00 /watt . . so on
Also take into your considering the REAL and the CLAIMED cost /watt.
Hope this helps.
Thanks - to Phi Tran
I live in New Orleans but plan to relocate to a country house in Wisconsin that runs on only electric heat at this time. I plan on spending the rest of my life on this 60 acres that is surronded by wetlands on 3 sides - so wiill probably never have natural gas as an option. So perhaps I could make your 17.5 percent payback calulation work - but i think that electric is only about 6 cent a kwatt as opposed to doulbe that in the NE, so maybe not.
If the math works then this industry is more in need of good salesman that more technology, because most people can not figure it out.
Thanks,
j
EUGENE,
We have hundreds of square miles of naked rooftops. Meaning that there are no solar panels on them.
And yes, the 100x growth of solar is posible. It just takes big investers. However, if the industry was a 100x larger there would be a slow down because of over production. If panels last 30 to 40 years, and people don't change them in this period, then if everyone has panels, who is going to buy them?
What is needed is a known amount of time before they are replace by newer and beter panels.
Hi Chuck Conover
Could you share with us YOUR REAL, ACTUALL COST/WATT on the field and on the paper supplied by the manufacture?
Please include all assessory and installation .
Those numbers are 'hard to find'
Thanks
Phi.
I am a technology attorney in Houston. I just completed a master's degree, my thesis compared EU and US policies on solar and distributed generation. I would like to build the solar industry with Brain Power from Houston.
Houston has a tremendous chemical industry as well as several huge semiconductor companies, like Texas Instruments (who I worked for) and HP. Applied Materials has offices close by in Austin.
We have amazing Nanotech research facilities at Rice University's Center for Nanotechnology, where the late Dr. Rick Smalley was awarded a nobel prize for his work witih fullerenes and carbon nanotubes. UH also has nanotech facilities. In addition, UH is home to physicis professors who did some of the original demonstrations of concentrated solar thermal plants 30 years ago. This is solid, proven technology.
Houston currently has NO solar industry - but it is time to change that. Houston has phenomenal financial resources, and with a little coordiantaion could be the center for new solar manufacturing.
If anyone wants to work with me to inititate the solar industry in Houston, please let me know.
Tyra Rankin
Solar works now. My PV system will cost me .14 KWh, if it lasts 25 years. Cost today for grid power here (AZ) is .085 KWh. So, today I'm paying a premium, but grid power will double within 5 years, I'm pretty sure, so I've still made a wise investment - although monetary investment was not my primary reason to install it.
Remove the incentives and subsidies from coal and oil and grid power will triple in cost.
Add some brain power and production capacity to solar and my replacement parts and new installation costs will dive in cost.
Add some of those oil/coal incentives and subsidies to solar and other renewable systems and, again, PV systems will dive in cost.
I had to laugh. The title of this story made me think of Microsoft producing solar products. Just what I need. My solar PV system producing triple the power, but crashing every 4 hours! LOL!
My solar PV system can be seen at http://www.zapsys.com/solarpanels.jpg
Think BIG. We do need brain power to achieve the production size required to bring the costs down to be competitive. Here's the big picture. These numbers are approximate. Assumption, (100 % solar PV) at end game. I realize 100% PV is not realistic, but this is simply an example to give you a "feel" for the scale of solution. There are a number of factors that can change the numbers dramatically.
Energy Needs: Current worldwide energy consumption, 400 quads. US energy consumption 100 quads. At an efficiency of about 12% we will need approximately 28 miles by 28 miles (30 million acres)of solar to cover our entire energy budget. To cover only the electrical demand, it is closer to 10 miles by 10 miles (10 million acres).
Land availability: In the US we have about 30 million acres of military bases, 120 million acres of urban and suburban sprawl, 140 million acres of highway right-of-way, and 10 million acres of fallow farmland.
Production required to meet the electrical demand in 15 years. 60 units producing 8' strips, at 2 feet per second. Triple this for the entire energy budget.
Assuming a life to 30 years per cell, and entirely solar, replacement production will be about 1 million acres/yr or 30 production units operating at 2 fps.
This is an attainable goal. It is attainable by us, in our lifetime. We should be encouraged by the progress, and set our goals higher.
john
Funny, no one has mentioned the way Citizenre will be making panels affordable to many by using economies of scale to produce them more cheaply, using a very inexpensive marketing method, with dedicated Ecopreneurs who are just as much interested in educating about renewables and climate change as getting customers (our website is called "jointhesolution," not "buysolar!) and then renting the result, so people don't have a big outlay. David Gregg is definitely Brain Power, but business brain power. This is really what is needed!
But Citizenre isn't the only company with a business plan that thinks of getting panels on roofs, of course. SunEdison says "Bright Idea: Buy solar electricity, not panels. Simplifying Solar"
The thought of a dream society relying on renewable energy sources has to be sold to the society at large with all of their wants and 'needs' now. The industry technology may be secondary to a larger need for a change in thinking. I have faith in science and the old adage 'where there is a will there is a way.'
The thought of taking away subsudies on oil and other not so renewable sources of power, pollution factored in or not, would have to be offset with better mass transit where those that could not afford the $5.00 a gallon gas prices (like in Europe) could get to their jobs without going bankrupt.
To ween the 'first world countries' off their habit, could be very much like that of an addict going through withdrawl. How do we find the the various methods to get off the drug? Will it be a rehab clinic, a replacement drug, going 'cold turkey'? We have to find different ways that work for every user.
Tyra, While I may not be able to help setting this up in Houston, am sure interested in starting this in India. Do let me know if we can collaborate on cost saving technology / since fabrication, assembly and putting together the system can be considerably cheaper in India and while PV panels would contribute to bulk of the cost, considerable savings in the non-PV area of the home solar system may be able to bring overall costs down.
My blogspot - pure-n-green.blogspot.com
Previous Article
