Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Do the photovoltaics that can transform sunshine into electricity require a revolution? Our current Secretary of Energy and Nobel Prize–winner Steven Chu thinks so.
But Subhendu Guha, chairman of PV maker Uni-Solar, disagrees: "People say we need a revolution to get to grid parity. The revolution has already happened."
Uni-Solar manufactures thin-film solar cells made from amorphous silicon. The company has built a machine in Auburn Hills Michigan that churns out nine miles of such photovoltaics in 62 hours—and Guha hopes to make the revolutionary machine even bigger soon.
Uni-Solar is not alone. Manufacturers that make traditional crystalline silicon solar panels are boosting efficiencies and dropping prices thanks to equipment improvements plus cheap Chinese labor and materials. Another U.S. company, First Solar, claims it can make its variety of thin-film solar cells for less than $1 per watt.
That's been the goal of solar panel makers for a long time, because as those prices decline electricity from the sun costs the same as, or is even cheaper than electricity from burning fossil fuels. And that means a "deployment revolution" might be imminent or, as Guha says, "a roof is a terrible thing to waste."
—David Biello
See what we're tweeting about
19 Comments
Add CommentWhat Solar power, photovoltaics, needs more than anything is for efficiency to rise while costs decrease. More research $$$ wouldn't hurt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce cost is below a certain point, less than $1 per watt or so, simple market economics will take over.
I don't necessarily see a contradiction between Energy Sect'y Stephen Chu and those who are already invested in current industrial capacity. Both statements can be true, though the application of market forces need to be applied to solar, whether old style amorphous silicon or some new nano-tech inspired, spintronix employing coating, or something entirely different, eventually they have to make it in the real world for which they've designed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrying to tell a business that is recieving significant support either by subsidy or mandates that it will no longer recieve those benefits is asking for complex excuse making, invoking everthing from strawmen to patriotism, but ultimately delays our reaching the best solution for the long run and upon which the next level of advancement must take place.
"Once cost is below a certain point, less than $1 per watt or so, simple market economics will take over."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not that simple. The production cost of solar energy needs to be under the production cost from all other sources like oil. But since 1973, Middle Eastern countries have exerted monopoly control over oil extraction. They restrict extraction to make sure that oil prices stay artificially high. If solar electricity is on the verge of becoming cheaper, all they have to do is increase extraction rates to lower prices and make sure solar panel never become widely used. That said, it is true that other more expensive oil sources like tar sands will become too nonprofitable.
They're not made in China just for the cheap labor. The dumping of the toxic manufacturing byproducts is much easier there. Unfortunately, PVs pollute quite a bit (unless you don't count dumping the waste in somebody else's backyard, let alone the megatons of coal burned at Chinese power plants to supply to the manufacturers...) The 'cost' of PVs should include this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishalneufmille, I don't agree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOil is not used much for power production. It's probably more tied to natural gas pricing in the current enviornment. While natural gas is somewhat tied to oil pricing, it does move independently also.
And I'm not sure that OPEC is really restricting extraction much if at all. They set official quotas, then everyone goes on to ignore them. I believe that the current market price of oil is pretty much appropriate for a free market price. It should be close to the cost of the the next incremental barrel extracted at the higher cost sites. Prices are not real high relative to historic pricing when adjusted for inflation and currency fluctuations.
Mr. Guha has been known to be overly optimistic from time to time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example, in 1985 he delivered a paper at the 11th International Conference on Amorphous and Liquid Semiconductors in Rome in which he claimed that Unisolar (then known as ECD/Sohio JV) has produced 12.2%-efficient solar cells, and the press release accompanying the paper claimed that the company has "consistently been able to duplicate laboratory results in [their] large-area operations." Fast forward 25 years to today: Unisolar's most efficient module on the market today, produced by the company's "large-area operations," is just 6.7%-efficient.
Now, let's talk costs. Mr. Guha claimed in 2002 (by then, he was already the President of Unisolar) in a press release that "high volume production (100 MW) [using Unisolar's approach] makes it possible for solar energy to become competitive with conventional fuels." Fast forward 8 years to today: Unisolar's nameplate production capacity has been over 100MW since early 2008, yet cost of manufacturing for the just-reported December quarter was estimated to over $2.20 per Watt (compare to just 84c per Watt for First Solar's 11.1%-efficient modules). Yes, it is possible to "temporarily" achieve "grid parity" with Unisolar's current costs of manufacturing, but that would mean selling the modules at below $1 per Watt, meaning severe losses and bankruptcy within months. Actually, the Unisolar modules are not selling well even at $2.10 per Watt (the reported ASP for the December quarter), because the estimated unit volume shipments declined about 40% year-over-year.
So, no, Unisolar has no "machine in Auburn Hills Michigan" that could "churn out" grid-parity photovoltaics. Unisolar is nowhere near grid parity.
Scientific American should be ashamed for providing a forum for people who misrepresent the truth.
Mr. Guha has been known to be overly optimistic from time to time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example, in 1985 he delivered a paper at the 11th International Conference on Amorphous and Liquid Semiconductors in Rome in which he claimed that Unisolar (then known as ECD/Sohio JV) has produced 12.2%-efficient solar cells, and the press release accompanying the paper claimed that the company has "consistently been able to duplicate laboratory results in [their] large-area operations." Fast forward 25 years to today: Unisolar's most efficient module on the market today, produced by the company's "large-area operations," is just 6.7%-efficient.
Now, let's talk costs. Mr. Guha claimed in 2002 (by then, he was already the President of Unisolar) in a press release that "high volume production (100 MW) [using Unisolar's approach] makes it possible for solar energy to become competitive with conventional fuels." Fast forward 8 years to today: Unisolar's nameplate production capacity has been over 100MW since early 2008, yet cost of manufacturing for the just-reported December quarter was estimated to over $2.20 per Watt (compare to just 84c per Watt for First Solar's 11.1%-efficient modules). Yes, it is possible to "temporarily" achieve "grid parity" with Unisolar's current costs of manufacturing, but that would mean selling the modules at below $1 per Watt, meaning severe losses and bankruptcy within months. Actually, the Unisolar modules are not selling well even at $2.10 per Watt (the reported ASP for the December quarter), because the estimated unit volume shipments declined about 40% year-over-year.
So, no, Unisolar has no "machine in Auburn Hills Michigan" that could "churn out" grid-parity photovoltaics. Unisolar is nowhere near grid parity.
Scientific American should be ashamed for providing a forum for people who misrepresent the truth.
Just this morning I completed the greatest revolution in solar or any other type of power. Believe it or not it is a perpetual power machine. It is based on the principles that create tornados and hurricanes, called the Corollis force and is kept in play by a combination of solar power, pressure and the variations in day and night time temperatures as well as the differenecs between ambient air and below ground temperatures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy combining these forces together in a closed airtight system and adding a direct drive flywheel generator I believe that I have created the world's first perpetual motion machine. Not only is it perpetual motion it will keep increasing in speed and power output until the seal on the system is broken.
I will post a diagram of the system later today at my website which is LightoftheWorld cum
A mass produced no tech single pane skylight at Home Depot costs $200 a sq meter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA 120 watt solar panel is really nothing more than a sq meter of solar cells worth maybe $120 today glued to that skylite.
If the skylite leaks the solar panel dies just like the mess it leaves on your ceiling.
The current fire sale prices on solar panels are a result of the collapse of the Spanish solar market, it won't last
Until super efficient solar cells get down to a reasonable price, the current ones even free glued to that skylight will keep prices above $2 a watt or over 40 cents a kwh installed on the average American roof.
40% - 60% PV breakthroughs have been just around the corner for the last 30 years. Half cent a kwh nuclear fusion will be perfected long before.
Maybe you could also add a statement like, "If PV panel prices go down, it will cost less money to purchase them."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI actually agree with Soccerdad!! Oil is not used in the US for electric.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut Sethdayal is still an idiot with his misinformation on prices, faulty reasoning.
Solar parity is already here with $2/wt retail,, $1/wt for seconds, sunelec.com, for homes, customers as they paid 2-3x's the cost from the utility's mark up. Soon plug and play PV systems with panels, inverter and mountings for under $3.50/wt will be had at Home Depot, Lowes, etc.
Uni-solar/ ECD is the worst rip off company one should never invest in or buy from though they rarely have product to sell because they are incompetent.
FSLR's solar panels are toxic. Europe does not want them, nor should America. Cadnium is a bad substance. Sorry FSLR, back to the drawing board. Americans are just to dumb...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe chairman of a PV manufacturer is hardly an unbiased information source. If this was to be a worthwhile topic, an independent scientist claiming solar power was near parity was needed. Unfortunately, I think that sort of person is hard to come by seeing as how PV still has a long way to go to get there. Take into account things like real-world efficiency drops with time and you readily see that buying this makes no sense without massive subsidies. Nor is that likely to change without the mentioned breakthrough. There has not been anything other than pretty minor efficiency and lifetime improvements in this technology for years as far as I have seen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo doubt someone manufacturing PV will now post an anonymous angry rebuttal while pretending to be an unbiased outsider.
Stacked solar cells are efficient because they capture more photons. As thickness of each cell in the layer decreases, efficiency increases. The trick is to optimize the number of layers and to optimize layer thickness. Electric current flows vertically, which increases efficiency also.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, the most interesting "cell" is a single gas molecule in a box. In a gravity field, the molecule always hits the bottom of the box with more energy than when it hits the top of the box. The "cell" violates the Second Law! This "cell" could cause a revolution because the box moves heat down.
Is labour a major cost factor in the production of PVs, from what I've seen its mostly capital cost driven?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@lightoftheworld
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL good joke! But seriously since your machine is solar powered, it cannot be a perpetual motion machine because the sun will die in about 10 billion yrs. A true perpetual motion machine that violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics is possible using the zero-point energy and has been observed in the Casimir effect. However, the energy is minute and unsustainable and cannot be used for engineering purposes. It is only a theoretical possibility.
I believe that we are in need of a solar revolution. The only thing that concerns me is that the solar power executives will become like all the oil companies now. The only difference will be that we are using SMA inverters instead of gasoline or oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisstore.thesolarbiz.com/online/Items.aspx?code=SMA_GRID_TIED&key=cat
People in Ontario will be paying to subsidize the Provinces Micro-Fit Program for years and years and years ,..... http://www.Offgrid-Living.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile splitting and concentrating the light has been proposed 30 years ago, the Rainbow Concentrator by Sol Solution is much simpler implementation and can have higher efficiency than anything currently on the market.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this