Cheaper solar: First Solar’s improvements in manufacturing photovoltaics have helped lead to big drops in cost. A worker at a First Solar factory in Frankfurt, Germany, moves one of the company's solar panels.
First Solar
The solar industry says incremental advances have made transformational technologies unnecessary.
The federal government is behind the times when it comes to making decisions about advancing the solar industry, according to several solar-industry experts. This has led, they argue, to a misplaced emphasis on research into futuristic new technologies, rather than support for scaling up existing ones. That was the prevailing opinion at a symposium last week put together by the National Academies in Washington, DC, on the topic of scaling up the solar industry.
The meeting was attended by numerous experts from the photovoltaic industry and academia. And many complained that the emphasis on finding new technologies is misplaced. "This is such a fast-moving field," said Ken Zweibel, director of the Solar Institute at George Washington University. "To some degree, we're fighting the last war. We're answering the questions from 5, 10, 15 years ago in a world where things have really changed."
In the past year, the federal government has announced new investments in research into "transformational" solar technologies that represent radical departures from existing crystalline-silicon or thin-film technologies that are already on the market. The investments include new energy-research centers sponsored by the Department of Energy and a new agency called ARPA-Energy, modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Such investments are prompted by the fact that conventional solar technologies have historically produced electricity that's far more expensive than electricity from fossil fuels.
In fact, Energy Secretary Steven Chu has said that a breakthrough is needed for photovoltaic technology to make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gases. Researchers are exploring solar cells that use very cheap materials or even novel physics that could dramatically increase efficiency, which could bring down costs.
But industry experts at the Washington symposium argued that new technologies will take decades to come to market, judging from how long commercialization of other solar technologies has taken. Meanwhile, says Zweibel, conventional technologies "have made the kind of progress that we were hoping futuristic technologies could make." For example, researchers have sought to bring the cost of solar power to under $1 per watt, and as of the first quarter of this year one company, First Solar, has done this.
These cost reductions have made solar power cheaper than the natural-gas-powered plants used to produce extra electricity to meet demand on hot summer days. With subsidies, which Zweibel argues are justified because of the "externalities" of other power sources, such as the cost from pollution, solar can be competitive with conventional electricity even outside peak demand times, at least in California. And projected cost decreases will make solar competitive with current electricity prices in more areas, even without subsidies.
Representatives of the solar industry say the federal government should do more to remove obstacles that are slowing the industry's development. One issue is financing for new solar installations, which can be much more expensive if lending institutions deem them high risk. A recent extension of federal tax credits and grants for solar investments is a step in the right direction, many solar experts say. But more could be done. A price on carbon would help make solar more economically competitive and more attractive to lenders.
New manufacturing techniques could cut solar power costs by 20 percent.
The federal government is about to spend billions of dollars on renewable energy. In Part II of our series on the federal stimulus bill, we look at the impact the spending will have on the future of solar power.
Due to the credit freeze, Optisolar falters and rising star First Solar expands.
While I have not doubt that thermal solar can scale and should be scaled to bring costs down even further, I wonder about the photo voltaic stuff. Is there enough processed silicon to really make a huge dent in the electricity demand? With the thin film it seems that they are on the edge of being quite competitive one plant here and there, but at 10X the demand? It might then become a lot more expensive due to materials limits.
That might be why new research is needed -- to find materials that really will scale. On the other hand, given how serious the problem is of finding an exit from the fossil fuel age, I wish the government would pony up for experimental and for scale ... rather than funding all those banker's bonuses.
Thin film photovoltaic should become the predominant application for roofs and many other architectural applications. It requires far less materials and is lighter. Thermal solar should win out for commercial applications in very sunny areas.
PV...No breakthroughts needed?
The title of this story boldly implies solar PV is already commercially competitive. This contrasts starkly with the results of a study published by the Carnegie Mellon Dept. of Engineering and Public Policy. An article in the July/August 2009 MIT Technology Review cites this study and notes, "the researchers...surveyed leading solar power experts on the future of photovoltaics and concluded not only that the technology is far more expensive than other renewable sources of energy...but that it 'may have difficulty becoming economically competitive' in the next 40 years. The results are 'dismaying' says Granger Morgan, a Carnegie Mellon engineering professor and the department's head."
A useful article would be one that reconciles these two wildly divergent opinions.
It's clear that the windfall that the DOE and other agencies received as a result of the Obama administration's "stimulus" package was directed towards funding new government initiatives, not in investing in tangible results. Since the government doesn't produce anything, investing in usable production isn't in its interest; its next best alternative is to fund more research so it can keep more bureaucrats on the payroll. I don't think they're terribly interested in how the technology is used or whether they reduce carbon; it's more about paying back political support with an ocean of cash to spend on new "research".
¢/kWh; $/kW; on a 24/365 basis
¢/kWh; $/kW; on a 24/365 basis.
A tough nut, for solar to break.
8760 hours per year.
2000 hours per year typical solar near their maximum power.
Starts at a ~4:1 disadvantage, from the get go.
;(
1. even at $1/W, utility scale projects still provide power at over $0.20/kW vs. $0.05-.06 for NG. i do not know where the author got his number, but it is dead wrong. 2. thin film requires a much higher BOS cost and size b/c of relative inefficiency, and frameless panels are cheese-whiz engineering. building integrated techs (including tiles) are all ridiculously inefficient. i do not install it, and i feel confident thin film will remain a marginal technology
The article does not site baseload NG, but specifically the power from peaking NG plants, which is closer to .20/kwh than the .05 you site.
Where are these mythical panels?
Why is it that multiple solar manufacturers make the claim that they can provide solar panels for $1/watt, but when we try to actually buy them they're not available for less than about $3/watt (even excluding installation). My feeling is that all of these claims are made simply to keep new manufacturers out of the marketplace, and are actually calculated on marginal cost (excluding 'trivialities' such as the capital cost of the manufacturing plant).
If someone can actually prove that they can manufacture reliable solar panels for $1/watt (all costs included), then there's hundreds of billions of dollars of venture money sitting there ready to bankroll the next manufacturing plant. There are over a hundred million roofs in this country, and it'll take decades to build enough panels to cover them. A plant that can make these panels for $1/watt is the closest thing to a financial sure thing that's available today.
As for the discussion between solar PV and solar thermal, the answer should be 'both'. In the discussions for clean energy, the issue always comes down to this OR that, when it should really be this AND that. Build the solar panels, and the solar thermal, and the wind farms, and the wave power, and the nuclear plants. Build it all (with only limited, short-term subsidies), and let the most cost-effective technology win.
Re: Where are these mythical panels?
Nice writeup swim dad,
I do believe there is big discrepancies in the business math. My guess from reviewing several hundred patent on solar is that solar concentrator will win because they use a minimal amount of silicon (which is the expensive item).
Interestingly, I just wrote a patent on a solar concentrator using a revolutionary new design. Email me and I will send it to you, briang1621 at the Gmail dot the com
Thanks
Brian
Re: Where are these mythical panels?
Even if suceeding in achieving the much trumpeted $1/W, with only 2000 hours of operation out of 8760, per year, the real price, on a 24 / 365 basis, is more like $4/W, sad to say.
;(
Re: Where are these mythical panels?
But here in the sunny South those 2000 hours occur at or near peak cooling load times. Residential solar reduces this load at the same time relieving the grid from some of the peak demand. Transmission costs/losses are one of the big gains for solar, as power generated nearer to demand gets additional effective efficiency boosts due to the fact you don't have to ship it.
There's also the side benefit of shading roofs as the solar panels nicely block the sun. I've not seen this effect explored anywhere though.
Re: Where are these mythical panels?
Transmission gain / loss = ~10%, max?
The trade off is getting electricity from an unreliable / intermittent 2000 out of 8760 source that has *at least* 4x (5x? 10x, fully installed?) the capital cost of other means, but no fuel cost, versus 1x from plants that consume fuel, but operate 24 x 365 (8760 hours).
Should give credit to wind. If its variability / intermittency can be tamed, may be able to compete directly, no subsidies, with coal plants.
Solar shading and insulation of air conditioned buildings can be accomplished much more fully and cost effectively, than what PV's expensive shielding offers.
They might not be necessary but they are desirable
VULVOX Inc's breakthrough collectors will be able to generate more than double the amount of power generated by current solar power tower plants! The Abengoa solar power tower in Spain is currently the worlds biggest. If it is retrofitted with VULVOX hybrid solar energy collectors it will generate 46.5 megawatts, not 20 as it does currently.
The dual solar thermal-photovoltaic system will wrest approximately twice as much power from an area as regular solar thermal or photovoltaic energy systems. Our technology can be used to retrofit existing parabolic troughs and solar power towers to increase their efficiency. Besides applications at utility scale solar power plants that are contributing electricity to the California power grid, they will also have an important advantage in the upcoming industry of rooftop solar power. Apartment buildings, offices and industrial buildings all have flat roofs that can accommodate our solar power systems and the greater efficiency of dual thermal-photovoltaic energy generation systems will make it cost competitive with other generation systems. Between 2009 and 2012 it is expected that the amount of installed CSP solar thermal power in the United States will grow 14 times!
The Vulvox collectors will not depend upon complicated advances in quantum or solid state physics. Our novel combination photovoltaic-solar thermal collectors will achieve the unprecedented efficiencies predicted here by means of relatively simple modifications to solar energy equipment; modifications that can be developed at a moderate cost.
The Vulvox solar system will generate higher power levels than competing parabolic troughs and solar power towers, while retaining all of the storage capabilities of solar thermal power.
Besides the inherent efficiency advantages of this collection system, we are sure we can add other modifications that will increase energy collection and electricity generation beyond those efficiencies. Modifications to increase the heat flow rate of the thermal collectors are an example.
Every time a photovoltaic panel system is upgraded and increases in power we can substitute it for a lower power panels used in previous "builds." and the higher power panels can be used in upgraded combination PV-solar thermal collectors with higher efficiency. Also, every time solar thermal systems are upgraded they can be combined with the latest practical photovoltaic collectors to keep the next generation combination systems cost competitive and to keep their efficiency higher than all other collection systems.
Contact us for more information.
HTTP://VULVOX.TRIPOD.COM
PROTN7@ATT.NET
Re: They might not be necessary but they are desirable
Neil, you have been making this claim for years. Still no product.
... just liek you have been claiming breaktroughs in cold-fusion, genetics, nanotechnology ...
Expanding Our Concepts of Solar Energy
We have to consider if it is reasonable to spend escalating sums of cash to install solar technologies that are in the stone-age of their development when we could instead be investing that money into the very research and development activities that could some day make them a viable solution for a broader populace.
Current solar cell technologies necessitate large up-front investments and vast quantities of mined minerals for their manufacture. Not only are solar cells a terribly expensive way to reduce CO2 emissions, but their manufacturing process is one of the largest emitters of hexafluroethane (C2F6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) – three gruesome greenhouse gasses that make CO2 seem harmless. Furthermore, solar cells are difficult to install, require regular cleanings and rely on a thinly-spread solar radiation from a sun that only shines half of the day, a cosmological constant showing no signs of improving.
For solar-based energy to make an impact, we will have to shift funding away from fabrication and toward research and development, implement passive solar techniques on a much larger scale, update building codes, and plant trees.
Ozzie Zehner
Ozzie Zehner is an energy consultant ZehnerStudio.com and the Executive Director of Imagitrends.com, a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) nonprofit.
Sure, incremental advance guarantees the corporations have time to adjust their revenue models to make greatest profits. That's why the discouraging of significantly newer or more efficient technologies.
Also, that new tech needs to be proven to stand up through the ravages of the environment.
Solar and wind have the same problem. We are tacking this technology onto the grid or directly trying to supply the old high energy demanding technology. There should be more development on equipment that requires less energy. A low voltage subsystem in a home could handle lights, communications, computers and replace every AC adapter (off-grid if need be). This low power developing would make solar and wind energy more than cost effective.
Perhaps a 12-24volt DC subsystem and if needed one whole house AC to DC converter. There would be grid power for heavy appliances, all else on the low power circuit.
The breakthrough should be on the user side not just the production side.
Personally one of the big changes that happens with having installed PV panels is the awakening of just what it means to use the every day items that make up the modern world.
In my case the energy useage has reduced by 75% on my largest quarter bill and about 50% on the other quarters.
Yes I had to improve my house and get better products when I replaced them but it has been a steady decrease in total power use over a number of years.
Now my yearly power useage is matched by my pv panels generation.
My system is not huge either running 2.1kw of panels ... on a good day it generates 12kwh's of energy.
Its the first day of spring here and yesterday I recorded 8kwh's into the grid(the temp was 13c in town (Australia)).
My last bill was in credit... and the price here is 15.5c a kwh.... so yes it is possible to run a reduced energy useage life style and still enjoy life.
PV panels wont provide base load power but the new solar thermal will.
Also power has been too cheap for too long because there has been no carbon price attached to the product.
Expect rapid increases in the cost of power from utilities.
The new heat and power solar cells look good but product on the shelves is needed.
The computer industry quote is a good one....
However the panels wont need to be replaced in 3 years like the pc's. Thus install now and enjoy, if better systems come along you may be able to trade in the panels for new break throughs rather than joining the used equipment in the dump.
People need to start the journey towards a lower energy life style, it takes time and awareness and some care when you buy and use items.
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
kenoatman
1 Comment
Debunking The Breakthrough Myth
Thank you for the timely article.
I'm a full-time photovoltaic salesperson, and it's unbelievable how many of my "objections" are based on some elusive, forthcoming breakthrough.
I'll mention thin film and microinverters, let the customer know that they're available now, then admit that, yes, incremental changes are a given in the industry. But nothing earth-shaking is coming down the commercial pike.
This would be like wanting to buy a computer in 1995, but waiting for Windows Vista to come out first. Long wait, and yes, Vista is definitely cooler than Windows 3. But you missed out on a lot of productivity while you waited.
Reply
dnwdfw
24 Comments
Re: Debunking The Breakthrough Myth
As a potential leading edge consumer of solar, I have noticed:
1) Net metering is NOT as widespread as it needs to be. Here in TX the main electric utility is dead set against it. I'm not overly fond of "giving" my electricity to the grid at $.04/KWH while paying $.14 for theirs. Fix this and you truly change the economics of solar.
2) Cultural change in home appearance is slow. My Home Owners Association (HOA) has a prohibition against "anything on the roof that detracts from the homogeneity of the homes" and I've been told solar panels are verboten. They are not very fond of lighter colored roofing materials either.
In the South, where cooling considerations outweigh heating by 3:1 on average, you'd think that efficiency would carry a higher priority than it does. Maybe when electricity from the grid reaches $.50/KWH attitudes will change.
Reply
markee
1 Comment
Re: Debunking The Breakthrough Myth
This is an insightful article. We could be investing money in wrong direction.
Reply