Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

What's Behind Record-Breaking Solar Cell Efficiencies, Part 1

By Jennifer Kho, Contributor
October 8, 2010   |   24 Comments
In this two-part series on solar cell efficiencies, we examine laboratory and commercial solar cell efficiencies of Crystalline Silicon, CIGs, Amorphous, Cadmium Telluride and Multijunction Concentrator cells

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
24 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 24
October 8, 2010
Dear Ms. Kho:

You have been misinformed again, and are using stale data.

First, Sharp has been making and selling the NA-V142H5 module which is a-Si and 10.0% efficient (panel efficiency). For comparison, Unisolar's most-efficient module is indeed 6.7% (PVL-144), and Oerlikon's most-efficient module is 9.8% (Inventux X 140). And, of course, the most-efficient Schott a-Si module is just 7.1% efficient (ASI TM 103) and the most-efficient Kaneka module is 6.3% efficient (GSA-60), nowhere near the made-up numbers given to you.

Second, of the CIGS modules, Wurth's WSG0036E092 module is 12.6% efficient, followed by Avancis' Powermax 130 which is 12.1% efficient.

Third, Unisolar is simply misleading you when they claim they will deliver 12% efficient commercial modules (forget about 20% and 95c per Watt!). What they are actually saying now is that they would deliver 11.4% efficient module in calendar year 2012. But they fail to explain why Unisolar's current Chairman promised in 1985 (that is, 25 years ago) a 12.2% efficient cell in "large area production" soon ( http://docs.google.com/View?id=dwv7q4q_119crf97jd7 ), yet Unisolar's current modules are just 6.3%-6.7% efficient.
Comment
2 of 24
October 8, 2010
Could somebody do a story on how long it takes some of these advances to get to market. I'd like to get a better perspective on that. We see articles every week about new breakthroughs in this or that. However, excitement wanes when we see on the street that solar is actually out of reach for most people, other than a toy flashlight or a $500 backpack.
Comment
3 of 24
October 9, 2010
I would be interested in a detailed explanation of "stabilized" efficiency vs just "efficiency". Thanks.
Comment
4 of 24
October 9, 2010
Earth4Energy: Some types of crystalline cells degrade as much as 6 percent in their first few days of illumination, and then their efficiencies stabilize. So a reference to "stabilized efficiency" means the cell was tested after being exposed to that light (instead of before). I hope that helps!
Comment
5 of 24
October 9, 2010
Rojelio: I will touch on this issue in Part 2 of this series, which will be posted here soon. For multijunction concentrator cells, Spectrolab says it has been able to bring lab cells to the market in about two years. The times vary among technologies and companies, of course, and commercial efficiencies are never expected to reach the ultimate top lab efficiencies -- and then you lose more efficiency when the cells get turned into panels. (Green says about 80 percent of lab cell efficiencies should be achievable at the module level.) I'll work to get more data on this for other technologies soon!
Comment
6 of 24
October 9, 2010
Hi:

Just to throw an idea out there, that has kind of been churning around in my mind for a while, regarding cell output.
Everyone (and I apologize in advance if someone is working on this) seems to be focusing on how can we make a solar cell more efficient. There seems to be a rut that research is in regarding this issue. From an inventer's perspective the goal is correct but the chosen path seems to be a bit uni-directional. Standard solar cells are not inefficient, period. In fact they are very, very efficient at a certain part of the spectrum, specifically the mid and high band IR part of the electromagnetic spectrum. So rather than focusing on how can we make a cell that has a high efficiency from IR to UV, why not tailor the "light" source to target the cells max efficiency wavelength..??.. Now, I am not suggesting we perform electromagnetic surgery on the sun. The mid and high IR bands have a black body temperature associated with them, as do all light wavelengths. It is very easy to heat under one sun intensity materials that reach the black body temp required to radiate IR at a cells max eff area. So this does not become a multi message post, I will try and put this in one sentence. By using a combination of vacuum technology, selective surface coatings and standard PV cells, it should be possible to create at cell output of 70% or greater. The materials to do this all exist today, most of them in the solar thermal market, at least in the basic form. The only one missing that is not in the thermal market is a selective surface coating that is designed with a split frequency emissivity, I.E. one that will start to radiate at the frequency that a PV cell is most efficient at...
The mfg of them would be more expensive of course, but it offers the possibility of tripling the output eff.. that can offset a whole bunch of cost...
Well, there it is.. probably someone is already working on it, but it is now out of my head in the open....

.....Bill
Comment
7 of 24
October 10, 2010
Hi Again:

I felt guilty not giving you some kind of "visual". Take a single wall evac solar tube, like a Sunda. (No not endorsing the "S" word) Now remove the metal end cap, heat pipe and take out the absorber. Now what you have is a big empty test tube. Turn it and look straight down inside. So, closest to you is the open end, which is a circle of course. Using standard clock references do the following. Bond the PV cells of choice to the inside of the glass from top to bottom but only from 3:30 to 8:30 passing through 6 o'clock. Anotherwards, almost half a circle from top to bottom. The cells need no encapsulation on the inside because at the end of the day, all the air will be sucked out. The standard physical bonding is used to bond them to the glass tube so the small amount of energy that does not go into elect can be conducted to the outside easily, very much the same as in current PV panels, just much less of it. Now, you create an "absorber" in a 9 to 3 half circle, top to bottom, 1/4" smaller in diameter so as not to contact the glass, as is done when these tubes are used in a thermal application. The trick is to put a low emissivity coating on the outer side of the absorber (High solar absorb, low emissivity, like a standard coating for a thermal app) and coat the inside with a coating that is designed to start to be "radiative" at the beginning of the cells peak area. The absorber should be of a material of very low mass, low specific heat, at least a moderate heat conduction coefficient and a pretty high melting point. This absorber gets placed in the tube (opposite side) suspended much like a standard thermal app. There is no heat pipe and the hole for the heat pipe exit becomes the exit for electrical and maintains its structural influence as well. Cap it, remove air, electric connections. Problems are suitable absorber material and coatings. Done right, this could be exiting the right frequencies on the back side towards PV, in a minute, full sun.
Comment
8 of 24
October 11, 2010
Jennifer, thanks for the reply on the time to market question. I see this in my field, biomedical research, also. We tend to report on new observations and minor breakthroughs (publish or perish), and then patients who are actually dying of disease get the wrong idea and think that cures are in hand when they are really some years away.... In the long run, I wonder if this results in less trust from the public? When can I get some solar nanofibers in my window without taking out a loan, rather than just reading about some lab at MIT.
Comment
9 of 24
October 11, 2010
The issue of STC efficiency is anyway misleading as STC represents a condition that exists for a tiny fraction of the daylight hours per year. In the real world a 12% CIS module will outperform a 12% any-other-technology module by a significant margin. For proof check out the Stuttgart tests.

Why do people fixate on module efficiency % when that's not what the user is after. KWh is the goal, so start focusing on KWh per KWp in real world rather than standard test conditions...
Comment
10 of 24
October 11, 2010
MacAfrican: Good point. This is something that I discuss a bit in Part 2 of this series, which I'm hoping will be posted soon. Kilowatt-hour has indeed become an important metric that many solar developers take into consideration in addition to peak efficiency. In terms of rating and comparing different modules industry wide (not on a per-project basis), researchers say it's harder to figure out what the KWh of a module is going to be because that changes significantly depending on factors -- such as where the module will be installed -- that are out of the manufacturers' control. But, for example, Green said there's consistent evidence that amorphous-silicon panels produce 5-10 percent more kilowatt hours than crystalline-silicon panels with the same rated capacity. Some thin-film companies have been talking about finding a way to standardize the KWh measurement. Still, all the folks I spoke with said that the peak efficiency measurement remains important. Many policies still assess incentives by rated capacity, for example, and peak efficiency remains important in projects aimed at meeting peak demand.
Comment
11 of 24
October 11, 2010
Rogelio:

I hear what you're saying and I think you're right that we have to carefully avoid hyping lab experiments as something that will be available soon. But I do think it's still interesting and important to communicate what's going on in the labs, even though those modules aren't available yet, because they have a traceable impact on the industry (and on science as a whole).

I tried to help set more realistic expectations by including the commercial efficiencies of panels actually available today, according to Photon's last overview in February. Those numbers were independently confirmed by Photon and they're conservative considering that some of then have already grown since then, as ecdfan pointed out. I also emphasized that "Commercial cells lag behind the efficiencies achieved by labs in so-called "champion cells," or best of breed cells, and companies don't expect cells produced in high volume to reach the efficiencies of those top lab cells."

Do you have suggestions for how I can better cover these lab results in the future?
Comment
12 of 24
October 12, 2010
Dear Ms. Kho:

Mr. Green misled you if he claimed that "there's consistent evidence that amorphous-silicon panels produce 5-10 percent more kilowatt hours than crystalline-silicon panels with the same rated capacity." Given the significantly higher long-term performance degradation of a-Si panels, over the life of the system, it is crystalline that delivers more kilowatt hours with the same rated capacity.

You should have challenged Mr. Green to provide you with 20-25 year data (the warranted life of a system) comparing a-Si and c-Si performance, and then it would have been apparent to you that he is spreading misinformation.
Comment
13 of 24
October 12, 2010
william-fitch-22587 - You are correct in that tens if not hundreds of millions are spent on cell technology, but relatively little on optics. I believe that current record for a system is 42.8% set by University of Delaware in 2007. ( http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2008/jul/solar072307.html )
Sol Solution uses one Fresnle lens to create a "Rainbow Concentrator" that seperates and concentrates the spectrum. You can see pictures of the prototype at http://www.sol-solution.net/Prototype2.html.
http://www.sol-solution.net/Prototype2.html
I agree that this is probably where concentrating solar will move toward in the future.
Comment
14 of 24
October 13, 2010
Thanks a lot.
Comment
15 of 24
October 13, 2010
Jennifer,
Your article concerning the efficiency of PVs is most encouraging. I read a great deal about Solar Technology and consider the growth of that industry very exciting. Efficiencies now appear to be the focus, coupled with cost, these are challenges that some of our best minds will continue to address in the years ahead. The progress I have seen since 1964 when I purchased a single "solar cell" from Edmunds Scientific, which cost me about $8 and had an output of .10 watt, has been remarkable. I marveled at the characteristics of my "solar cell", and spent about $10 on a multi meter so I could measure it's output in various conditons. We have come a long way!
Comment
16 of 24
October 14, 2010
Thanks Bob! What a difference 46 years makes, huh? :-)
Comment
17 of 24
October 14, 2010
Hi DW:

Thank you for the reply but I was not talking about concentrating solar.
I was speaking about 1 sun tech..
The problem is achieving a high enough black body temp to produce a high enough band IR that is smaller than the band gap in the PV. I did some digging and some talking since the post. The problem is that a good enough "perfect absorber"/"no emissivity" coating and a coating that starts at the beginning of a "the cells" turn on point does not exist. Right now there are cells tailored for the IR band that are used with combined heat/power devices. That is, they do VERY well in IR but the heat source is 1200 DegC capable. This usually is a conventional heat source device or high sun (1000X+) device.
I using just a simple single wall evac tube with the heat pipe cut off, measured temps over 320 DegC inside. Yes, there is a long way between 320 and 1200, BUT it is an Aluminum absorber with common AL/N/AL coatings. Those do not approach Black Nickel on Bright nickel, 95%A, .07% E on some super light Nano thick ceramic or carbon substrate, or whatever. The E number of Black on Bright is almost 2 orders of magnitude better than the simple off the shelf thermal tube I was using.
To put it simply, how hot has someone to date, got a surface under one sun in a vacuum??
If someone can say without losing their job, that would be an interesting number.... as a place to start....

.....Bill
Comment
18 of 24
October 15, 2010
A research on Solar Cells for Water pumping was done by me in 1969. This work was undertaken as Solar Energy is intermittent due clouds and rain etc and is only available in the day time. Water pumping enjoys the benefit of storage in tank for later use. The costs of Solar cells were of the order of $100/Wp with efficiency of 4% and we had only few cells of the thinfilm variety. The costs were high for the large number of Cells necessary to drive a standard 230V DC water pump that is normally used in Sri Lanka. A DC amplifier was designed and this was connected in series with the the few cells that was available at that time the same current through the cells went through the pump. The amplified Voltage was fed to the different types of pumps which had the same current through the cells. This provided the effect of large number of cells to drive the different pumps. The positive displacement pump the tube pump type was found to give the best out put. Solar Cell efficiency has come through a great way now! We observe now there are triple junction devices which captures most of the wave lengths of Suns spectrum giving higher efficiency.
This is a great effort to summarize all details in a single article. Great Job. Waiting to see the second part.
Comment
19 of 24
October 15, 2010
We like to see these in your nest article-- Concentric Solar
Spectrolab has developed a new multijunction concentrator solar cell with a sunlight-to-electricity conversion efficiency of 41.6 percent, a new world record in solar cell efficiency, costing as little as $3 per watt to install and producing electricity at a cost of 8 to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multijunction_photovoltaic_cell

There Data sheets

http://www.spectrolab.com/DataSheets/PV/CPV/C3MJ%20CDO%20Products%2020100810.pdf
http://www.spectrolab.com/DataSheets/PV/CPV/C3MJ%20CCA-100%20data%20sheet%2020100828.pdf
Comment
20 of 24
October 16, 2010
Hi:

Any concentrator technology, electric or thermal is useless except in clear sky country. A majority of the USA geography has too high a diffuse component... The efficiency gained through concentration is lost through reduced total available energy to the target...

.....Bill
Comment
21 of 24
October 16, 2010
fireofenergy,

Robots provide flexibility, but at a high cost. Flexibility that you hardly need for a product that is mechanically as simple as a solar panel.

Robots are used in car manufacturing where you have to deal complex shapes that change every 5 years or so. That's when you need the flexibility, not in solar panel manufacturing.
Comment
22 of 24
November 1, 2010
Guys, let's not miss the forest for the trees. Maybe 20% efficiency in solar panels isn't the Holy Grail, but we must remember 100% efficiency = PERPETUAL MOTION! Here are some "Low" efficiency devices that have made a few bucks over the years:

Automobile 18% (gasoline engine, w/o A/C)
Incandescent light bulb (2%)
Fluorescent "green" tree-hugger bulb: 9%

Also, it's not all about the efficiency, it's about the economics. Solar panels now retail for ~$1.00 per output watt. That's 3 times better than 10 years ago.
A really precise cost analysis comparison is hard to do because (in USA) the federal government leases mining land to coal companies for as little as $1.00/acre (that is not a typo), whereas progressive energy companies that utilize solar pay about $200-$500 per acre of land/year. So, you pay your coal-fired power bill monthly and again on April 15 (well, some of us do,anyway). In North Carolina, you can now do better than break even on a 20-year amortized solar investment that powers a single home (you can make about %4 ROI if you include federal/state incentives, and this does not bring to bear the Economies of Scale of acommercial Solar farm or large rooftop array.
OS maybe the glass is not half-empty, it's about 1/4 full...and rising.
Just my two cents worth......
Comment
23 of 24
November 10, 2010
We are seeking a specific market ready newly developed product to install a 1.5 MW solar electric facility. The owner of the project wants tracking capability to maximize gain per day.
We will consider; suncatcher or similar technology as a point focusing path to achieve this level of output. We will consider Solon tracking panels or similar technology as there is a 2 MW Solon non-tracking solar field within 1200 yards of the proposed site. We are also interested in a thin film application which applies the Cal Tech lab breakthrough, in a pilot project here. We seek this information with an emphasis on KWH/Sq. Meter/day potential output For Vacaville Ca. JerryCheesman@yahoo.com
Comment
24 of 24
November 23, 2010
We at Energywyze have testimony with a client with Solar and have installed our Intelawatt module and the meter turned backwards even quicker. Feel free to take a look at our website for all the Solar efficiency information at http://energywyze.us/technical-points.html and any questions give us a call.
Tony
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

Jennifer Kho

View Jennifer Kho's Profile
About: Jennifer Kho is a freelance reporter and editor based in Oakland, Calif. Aside from RenewableEnergyWorld.com, her stories have appeared in The New York Times' G... more »

Advertise With Us

Enphase Energy Solectria Renewables LLC Westinghouse Solar ESI Inc. of Tennessee Apricus, Inc. Solar FlexRack American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
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