Sign-In  or  Create a Free Account
Sign-in with:
 
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
 
Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

1366 Technologies Opens New Factory, Paves Road to Cheaper Solar PV

Do you like this news?

 
 
17 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 17
February 2, 2013
I wonder what the energy consumption of the new facility is, and where their energy is coming from.

it would be great if the author could add that information.
Comment
2 of 17
February 2, 2013
presumably the roof of the facility is covered with solar panels?
Joe
No image available
Comment
3 of 17
Anonymous
February 2, 2013
Either there are serious typos in this article, or Lieutenant Governor Murray is feeding the press baloney. There are a total of about 3,250,000 jobs in Massachusetts. It's ludicrous on the face of it to claim that 700,000 of them, or over 1 in 5, are in renewable energy. In fact, there are only some 100,000+ solar energy jobs nationwide. Go back and check your facts, James. Likewise, the assertion that there are 5,000 renewable energy companies operating in Massachusetts is patently absurd.
Comment
4 of 17
February 2, 2013
This is the Future. This technology is still in its infancy and to get it up to speed we will have to redo the grid so that all of our buildings become producers rather than just consumers of fossil fuels, we will have to use the fossil fuels to get us there. Then the fossil fuels can be retired and our power can be harvested from the sun. This needs all of our support. Have you taken a look at the Alberta Tarsands....this is the logical realistic alternative if we want to continue living on this planet with the human population that is increasing exponentially.
Comment
5 of 17
February 2, 2013
Evergreen, another Massachusetts company has already figured that out with their string ribbon manufacturing process and look where it got them: bankruptcy. They couldn't even sell their idle plant with the wonderful equipment.
Comment
6 of 17
February 3, 2013
"another Massachusetts has been already figured that out with their string ribbon manufacturing process and look where it got them: bankruptcy."
Is there another Massachusetts? I am unable to understand what you are saying. Were you invested in a company that went bankrupt? Well that has happened many times before. Take Arbusto Oil company that George W Bush ran into the ditch and one of the bin Ladens bailed him out. There are also no tax subsidies that are being generously handed out to the Solar Startups like the Oil Corporations still enjoy. It is time to get positive about the Solar Future.
Comment
7 of 17
February 3, 2013
'1366 says it has created solar cells with 17 percent efficiency in customer trials, which it deems 'industry average.'
17 percent efficiency is not good enough since multicrystalline Si solar cell efficiency has been higher than 17.3 percent on average somewhere.And laser-trimmed to a standard 156 × 156 mm size could be viable for industry manufacturing but probably very slowly.
Comment
8 of 17
February 4, 2013
Anon #3: Indeed I fatfingered the number for workers, should be just north of 70k. (His follow-up quote was "five times the population of Bedford.") But that, and the number of clean-energy companies operating in Mass (5k), are from the Mass Clean Energy Center: http://masscec.com/index.cfm/page/2012-Massachusetts-Clean-Energy-Industry-Report/cdid/13909/pid/11170. Their numbers are qualified as being broadly in "clean energy," defined as involved in or related to "renewable energy, energy efficiency, alternative transportation, and carbon management."
Comment
9 of 17
February 4, 2013
I understand that Germany is surgging ahead in developing a solar home project. It is obvious that there is a viable Solar capability. I saw it in the 70's at Western Washington State U. Then we got Reagan the Exxon President and we have had Oil money buying the White House ever since. I know the technology exists....the Oil Corps bought it up and now we are having to rediscover the 'Wheel'.
Comment
10 of 17
February 6, 2013
At the beginning of the article the 1366 CEO says cost can be reduced by 1/3. The production cost of 29 cents per watt quoted in the article would mean 1366 could produce wafers at a cost of roughly 20 cents per watt. At the end of the article the CEO claims a production cost of 10 cents per watt. Which is correct?
Comment
11 of 17
February 8, 2013
Davidcarl, the CEO meant the cost can come down to 1/3 of its present value. Hope this clarifies.
Comment
12 of 17
February 10, 2013
Off topic- but, since some knoweldable people are reading this thread, and I'm not one of them- but I live near a solar "farm"- I'm curious about the technology. My question for the day is- what happens when it snows? After the blizzard, I just walked "the farm" and noticed that about half the surface of the panels is still covered with snow 2 days after the storm. I recall at planning board meetings that the builders said they needed to cut trees at the edge because any shade at all on the panels would be a big problem- any shade would cause the shaded panel to stop working- and all the other panels connected to that pannel would also stop producing. I believe this is older technology- they're wired up like Xmas tree lights. Also, if they're so worried about shade from a tree, what happens if a dark cloud goes over and temporarily shades some panels?
Comment
13 of 17
February 11, 2013
davidcarl #10 and rick-schwerdtfeger-41165 #11: correct, he meant costs are reduced to a third of conventional costs, i.e. a 2/3 reduction. I've corrected this in the text, thanks for pointing out the confusion.

greg-eisenberg #1 and joe-zorzin #2: No specific numbers about energy efficiency but Frank noted how energy-intensive the typical silicon making process is, and that 1366's energy payback is less than a year. For this new facility they are making what he called a "huge investment" in recycling heat and "moving huge quantities" of hot and cold air, but didn't specify numbers in either case. They also want to have a prominent solar install on the property at some point, with modules using their own wafers of course, but this won't happen until such modules are commercially available.
Comment
14 of 17
February 11, 2013
Joe-Zorzin: Depending on the PV panel and array wiring design, shading can be a very significant problem, as you stated. And snow cover obviously shades at least part of the panel. If I owned the PV array, I would simply including brooming-off the panels as part of my normal snow removal routine. This is a great example of a situation that industry nay-sayers will use to show why PV is not a good solution... to which I say, "What's the big deal? Just get out a broom (and ladder if needed) and burn off a couple hundred calories clearing your PV array!" What we really need is universal (aka national) laws allowing isolated use of PV arrays during power outages so homeowners/businesses can use the power during a power outage. So let it snow, let it snow, let it snow (then bust out the broom)!
Comment
15 of 17
February 12, 2013
Rick, in the case of the solar "farm" near me- it has something like 14,000 panels- covering 17.5 acres, so I suppose they consider it too much trouble to clear the snow.
Comment
16 of 17
February 12, 2013
I wonder if it is too much trouble to clear the snow, or too much trouble to do the cost-benefit analysis calculations? They could easily look at data to understand the cost of lost energy from snow cover, and compare it with how much it would cost to hire and train some local un-employed workers at a reasonable rate to clear the snow. Obviously the calculations must take into account the upcoming weather report to know if it would quickly melt off (or blow off) on its own. But these are all very easy calculations to do.
Comment
17 of 17
February 23, 2013
"1366's value proposition is to 'sell the world's best wafer' with added value including texturing, but made at a fraction of the cost, with better uniformity and performance specifications, summed up CEO Frank van Mierlo in an interview following the open-house. Bottom line: the company says it can reduce silicon costs across the board by to just a third of today's costs: 1/3 off of standard processing, 1/3 the labor, and 1/3 the consumables. Even if silicon prices are a fraction what they were a few years ago, any way to squeeze out more costs — while not altering processes or quality elsewhere in the value chain — still resonates.

Much of 1366's processes, and the equipment to perform them, were invented and created in-house: patterning the wafers with a low-cost polymer, and a wet etch chemistry for texturization are both proprietary, for example. (Diffusion processing is standard, as is metallization/screen printing.) There's an in-house machine shop with a fulltime operator, plus the company outsources some equipment work."

We agree.
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

James Montgomery

View James Montgomery's Profile
About: Jim is Associate Editor for RenewableEnergyWorld.com, covering the solar and wind beats. He previously was news editor for Solid State Technology and Photovolta... more »

Advertise With Us

National Hydropower Association Apricus, Inc. Solaire Generation RevoluSun Johnson Controls, Inc. Brightergy KACO new energy, Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
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 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