Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

The Rise of CIGS – Finally?

By Ucilia Wang, Contributor
July 22, 2010   |   9 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
9 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 9
July 23, 2010
Bottom line: None of the CIGS vendors has efficiency-adjusted cost of manufacturing to compete with First Solar and the low-cost crystalline module makers.


Also, I doubt very much that major "crystalline silicon panel makers were selling their products ... at around €1.2 [US $1.19] per watt during the first quarter of this year." You seem to imply that the Euro and the Dollar were at parity in the first quarter, which is false - one Euro converted to $1.33 to $1.46 US dollars in the first quarter.
Comment
2 of 9
July 27, 2010
ITS REALLY INTERESTING. WE ARE INTERESTED TO SET UP MANUFACTURING UNIT FOR CIGS THIN FILM SOLAR PANEL IN INDIA. CAN YOU GUIDE US? PL. SUGGEST NAME OF ANY PARTY WHO ARE INTERESTED FOR JOINT VENTURE FOR SETTING UP SUCH PLANT. INVESTORS ARE AVAILABLE. THERE IS VERY VAST SCOPE IN INDIA FOR SOLAR ENERGY.FROM HERE IT CAN ALSO BE SUPPLIED TO OTHER ASIAN COUNTRIES.PL. SUGGEST IF ANYBODY INTERESTED FOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FOR CIGS SOLAR PANEL MANUFACTURING.
DILIP JOSHI E MAIL-dbj_25@yahoo.com PHONE NO +919909940119
No image available
Comment
3 of 9
Anonymous
July 27, 2010
"Thin film" solar is heavy metals in a petroleum-based(plastic)film. Heavy metals are generally toxic.

Traditional crystalline solar makes use of silicon, which is as toxic as glass.

The infinitely long-term cost of keeping heavy metals out of the water supply--is that part of the economic analysis?
No image available
Comment
4 of 9
Anonymous
July 28, 2010
I agree, with post below. Ms.Wang has her conversion wrong or as a reporter should state in more specif terms who these majors are. "Major crystalline silicon panel makers were selling their products at around at around €1.2 [US $1.19] per watt during the first quarter of this year"
I think she meant $1.46USD for MW scale projects.

I doubt very much that major "crystalline silicon panel makers were selling their products ... at around €1.2 [US $1.19] per watt during the first quarter of this year." You seem to imply that the Euro and the Dollar were at parity in the first quarter, which is false - one Euro converted to $1.33 to $1.46 US dollars in the first quarter.
Comment
5 of 9
July 28, 2010
CdTe is indeed toxic and needs proper disposal measures, but not all Thin-Film have the same level of toxicity. CIGS and aSi have no more toxicity issues than most construction materials used for construction, such as roofing, siding, windows (especially PVC), insulation...

Both Crystalline PV (cSi) and Thin-Film have good market potential and ideal applications, not always the same. Crystalline PV has a competitive advantage when you need to maximize use of space, under colder conditions, clearer sunlight, and usually when you need to use on "panels" versus integrate with the envelop. Because CSi tend to have a higher capacity per area, they usually provide better economics with tracking devices. On the other side, CIGS can typically work better in warmer conditions (less efficiency degradation), diffuse light (i.e. very humid/foggy or polluted/smoggy area - areas with high Albedo to use up to the 80% of reflected energy from snow or other highly reflective surfaces), when building integration is important, as they can be blended into solar tiles, metal roofs, windows, siding. They are better when you want something flexible (i.e on travel bags, travellers or army clothing to power communication devices).

What should matter in the end is the levelized cost of energy, of the price per kWh delivered. Lab conditions and nominal rating (usually at 800W artificial indoor lamp for 26 degree ambient temp) do not reflect real life conditions. I see a very bright future for both technologies, but only professionally done feasibility studies can tell which solution will actually provide the best financial returns based on the specific context (and returns are not just paybacks, but pre and tax after tax ROI, NPV, Profitability Index)...

Frederic Pouyot
President, Solar & Sustainable Energy Society of Canada Inc. sesci.ca
Director, Clean Energy Institute cleanenergyeducation.net
CEO, GPEKS Constructions Inc. gpeks.com
Comment
6 of 9
July 28, 2010
Thanks for finding our conversion error. The story reflects the proper EU to USD conversion now.
Comment
7 of 9
July 28, 2010
I find the solar competition heartening.

When quite a bit of solar is installed, we will have less heat/beat/treat/pollute. Janine Benyus TED talk reverberates in my head as the direction we need to go to with energy use.

A positive way to say that is that we will be heading toward energy resilience and quieter ways of doing things in less space and with more subtlety, as nature so often fabricates. The more dispersed generation is, the more resilient it will be, and the better able neighbors will be to help each other if one goes down. As storage technologies advance, maintaining long supply lines should become less of an issue.

Remediation techniques may be improving as well, though they do not grab headlines so easily. There are ways to deal with heavy metals coming, with plants and fungi.
Comment
8 of 9
July 28, 2010
It's truly disappointing to read countless articles on CIGS without a mention of the company with currently the highest CIGS production output, the highest average module efficiency in volume production, as well as a champion module (format 1190 x 630mm2) efficiency of 13% - verified by Fraunhofer ISE. Solibro GmbH, 100% owned by Q-Cells, has forecasted 82MW by end of this year and is ramping to 135MW all told. How is it that Sulfurcell, technically a Cu-In-Sulfur manufacturer, is able to garner mention here, especially considering it puts out efficiencies of max 8%! Solibro has consistently been putting out higher volumes than Sulfurcell with 50% more efficiency! Hmm. Maybe because Intel Capital is one of its investors?
C'mon now.
No image available
Comment
9 of 9
Anonymous
July 28, 2010
Most BANG FOR THE BUCK looks to be in Solar Thermal. Tho CIGS looks to fill a definite nitch, NON-TOXIC, MASS PRODUCED thermal systems at 24% should handle most of the big projects. And right now anyone can enjoy the benefits in this hot business with ownership in a solar power plant at NO COST - tax benefits cover the entire cost - here: tnns.org/solar
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Ucilia Wang

View Ucilia Wang's Profile
About: Ucilia Wang is a California-based freelance journalist who writes about renewable energy. She previously was the associate editor at Greentech Media and a staff... more »

Advertise With Us

Sol Systems LLC Solaire Generation RES Offshore Mannvit Latin American Wind Energy Association (LAWEA) Poet Nextek Power Systems, Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters