(Page 2 of 2)
First Solar says that it transforms two-by-four-foot glass plates into ready-to-ship modules in 2.5 hours, with power efficiency exceeding 9 percent, up from about 7 percent in 2004. That combination, claims First Solar, has slashed the cost per watt from $2.94 in 2004 to $1.29 today--a period in which growing demand for high-grade silicon inflated the cost of producing silicon panels to between $2.50 and $3.00 per watt, or more.
German renewable-energy developers such as Juwi Solar, Gehrlicher Gruppe, and Blitzstrom began using First Solar modules in large rooftop installations and field-based solar parks in 2005. In February, Juwi Solar picked First Solar's modules for its 40-megawatt solar park in Saxony; upon its completion in 2009, the park's 550,000 First Solar modules will cover an area equal to 160 football fields.
At the Solar 2007 conference in Cleveland earlier this month, First Solar COO Chip Hambro said that the company anticipates slashing the price it charges for modules (as opposed to its manufacturing cost) from more than $2 per watt today to $1.25 per watt or less within five years. The company would do this largely by further boosting the modules' power output.
Zweibel's startup, PrimeStar Solar, based in Golden, CO, is also betting on higher efficiency. PrimeStar seeks to commercialize a more sophisticated module design developed at NREL, which holds the efficiency record for laboratory-made cells at 16.5 percent (compared with 14.5 percent for First Solar's best lab cells). Zweibel says that cadmium telluride technology offers a "clear physical pathway" to cut the cost of solar energy from 15 to 30 cents per kilowatt hour today to 5 cents per kilowatt hour--just above the average cost of coal-fired power in the United States.
However, First Solar's original plant in Ohio is now largely depreciated, meaning the loss of an economic benefit. As First Solar produces more from its new module plant in Germany and a third plant that's under way in Malaysia, the company may have more work to do to deliver on its promise to cut its price for a watt of module to less than $1.25.
Plastic cells are lighter than silicon ones, but they're not as efficient--one company aims to fix that.
Thin-film silicon solar cells are more efficient with tiny holes in the back electrical contact.
Guest (don.hutchinson)
Peter is obviously not an accountant. Depreciatio may affect income (and taxes) but a depreciated factory is not a liability as he implies. To the contraryy a depreciated plant is typically "written off"and is no longer a charge to current operations and cost
I am not an accountant, but that's beside the point. As you have observed, a depreciated factory is no longer counted against costs. In First Solar's case, this should contribute to their current low cost of production. In the next few years as First Solar shifts to producing mostly at new factories, it will lose this financial advantage. That could make it harder than it might appear for the company to achieve the substantial price drop promised for 2012.
Actually according to page 39 of the 2006 annual report you are mistaken about the depreciation. In fact it increased by $5.9 million at the Ohio facility as the result of a doubling of capacity during 2006. So in fact the recent steadily improving numbers take into account the increase in depreciation and a huge amount of overhead associated with testing new plants as they come on line along with the full costs of operation (equipment, staff, materials) without yet having any saleable production from the new plants. They should see significantly lower costs as one time startup costs are replaced with normal operational costs.
In other words, capital costs are rising -- just as one would expect. Note that the lowest capital cost estimates for solar manufacturing facilities are in the $1/watt range, suggesting that the $5.9 million charge you cite can not represent the full cost of their corresponding 25-50 megawatt expansion.
To get back to the larger point: It is not that First Solar can not or will not deliver on its price goal, but rather that one must not go forward under the illusion that meeting such an ambitious goal will be easy.
The thin film may well be a good candidate for a described three tier intercontinental Northern Hemisphere tie-in called WEDS - World Energy Distribution System.
It is valuable to see a new, thoughtful article like this on CdTe. It's an important new technology because systems are going in at record low prices - a $4.2/Wp 40-MW First Solar/JUWI Group ground mounted system in Germany; and $5/Wp large roof system by the same team (these systems would be in the 15-20 cents/kWh in US locations with good sunlight). These are about 20% less than any other known installed PV prices - I invite others to comment on any other well-documented low cost PV systems, in case I have missed any (these are published prices on the JUWI website).
CdTe is also a fair example of a prior success of Federally sponsored research in the US, since CdTe has been developed and nurtured in alliance with Federal DOE program through NREL. How many other TW-potential technologies have emerged commercially from such programs? First Solar has been and still is nurtured by the DOE/NREL PV program (as is PrimeStar Solar).
Information about CdTe has been rare in the past due to an absence of publicity because of the fear that public misunderstanding about using tiny amounts cadmium would be a problem. In the meantime (25 years!), excellent experts like Paul Moskowitz and Vasilis Fthenakis of Brookhaven National Lab have done the spade work to show that safe manufacturing practices and recycling would close the loop on perceived Cd issues. But for this reason, the world is starved for information about this very important advance in practical, low-cost PV.
Finally, the path forward to low cost comes from both technical advances (improved efficiency, optimized processes, thinner layers with less material cost...) and volume production (economies of scale). Although it is hardly guaranteed, it is logical and clear all the way down to about 5 cents/kWh (about $1.2/Wp installed) for large systems (over 1 MWp).
The progress of solar technologies, on which so much depends in terms of climate change, energy supply and diversity, and world sustainability (economically and politically) will only grow stronger now that the power of investment is beginning to be substantial. In comparison, prior progress will seem inconsequential and idiosyncratic when we look back on it. But sustained development in solar requires the period of transition to cost-competitiveness best exemplified by the current US bills to support commercial solar with tax credits, renewable energy portfolio standards, and other programs like the excellent European "feed in tariffs" (which pay per kWh and thus are more aggressively cost-oriented).
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
nekote
139 Comments
good - $ / KWH the holy grail
It's good to see a lower efficiency PV system also working to lower the $ / KWH price.
As great as the high efficiency triple junction cells are, they're very expensive. Adding concentration and tracking increases complexity and expense.
Which will eventually win?
High cost / high efficiency versus low cost / low efficiency?
(In the battle for lowest $ / KWH)
Reply
Guest (rhapsodyinglue)
Re: good - $ / KWH the holy grail
It would seem there probably is a place for both ends of the cost/performance spectrum. In situations where installation labor costs are high, such as retrofitting a house in the U.S. with solar, the high efficiency would probably out weigh higher module costs, since the module cost is much less of the overall costs. In situations where the installation costs are lower, such as developing countries with cheaper labor or new constructions (especially where the solar might also serve to replace roofing or other structures), it might make economic sense to use cheaper though lower efficiency.
Reply