Solar cells down to details...

[rshayes]

Quote from Chris Smith:<p>"In 2002 only 10,755 square feet of solar cells was shipped in the us by the top ten producing companies. Hardly mass production."<p>Reference cited by Chris Smith:<p>"http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.rene ... ml"<p>What the reference actually says:
Top 5 Producers- 10,755,000 square feet
Next 5 Producers- 670,000 square feet
Total- 11,425,000 square feet<p>Further quote from Chris:<p>"Don?t get suckered in to the black hole of ignorance, just do your home work. <p>There is even a gem in there for you to drool over, but not with out doing your home work?"<p>Do I really have to explain?

[sofaspud]

And then there's...
"we simple need to wean our selves of big business who doesn’t have our best interest in mind"
"Politics and greed, that and short sightedness is the problem."
"And DC couldnt give a damn, they will still drive limousines and you will keep paying through the nose willingly and with a smile?"
"Not really, But politicians never tell the truth, so It would seem that way."
Then we're given press releases stating that the technology being advocated is coming from the R&D labs of big business, such as "Europe's largest semiconductor maker," and when implemented it should be nationalized, i.e. managed by those same ignorant uncaring lying DC politicians!?!
Sadly, I don't think there is an explanation...

[Chris Smith]

Clap clap, your not all asleep like your your brain suggests. You found the Gem, ehh?

The total production in the us amounts to a oil savings of $150 k an hour savings, not the 150 mil that we could eaisly save, in just one year woth of production of cells. <p>But focous on the things that make the false argument, and keep those arabs happy in cavair,...ehh?<p>Plenty of more Easter eggs to find, I'll try not to make them so easy to find next time?<p>And then there is ......<p>Your government works for you in DC, and lobbyists work for the Martians.<p>Your dollar, I mean pennies versus a V.S. the lobbyist 100k in the pocket gets your job done for you, and I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn real cheap?<p>
Big business works for you, haha<p>Big business care about you? yeah right<p>Big business buys china, for your sake, <p>And pigs can fly. <p>Gawd I wish I was soo young and naive again.<p>Life is a fuzzy banky and a teddy bear?<p>[ April 29, 2005: Message edited by: Chris Smith ]</p>

[rshayes]

The correct term is "road apples", not "Easter eggs".

[ian]

Chris you seem to be acknowledging you're not here to post relevent information, but to play games. Posting false information, hiding little "Easter eggs" for us to find.
That's ok with me, you just lost more credibility.
I'm here to clarify issues about a worldwide energy problem so that crucial decions can be made concerning the fate of the world.<p>You go ahead and play your games, like I said, I call people like you environmental terrorists.

[peter-f]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by stephen:
[Q]Quote from peter-f:<p>"WHA???? Which luxury model was this... a Chevette was $6000 - made in USA."<p>Just giving someone a break. In 1984, I bought a Japenese pickup truck for $6500. No radio, no automatic transmission, no air conditioning, no crew cab, no long bed, and no sun roof. A Japanese sedan would have been around $9000. I assumed that the American version would command a somewhat higher price.<p>However, if you want to assume a $6000 Chevette in 1984, I am certainly willing.<p>All those who honestly believe that you can buy a new Chevrolet for $2400 please clap your hands. Tinkerbell is practically dead.[/Q]<hr></blockquote><p>Yes Stephen- THOSE figures offered are more useful... As I've requested, you NOW have something to compare.
All I requested is info: WHICH MODEL cost that ghastly %15,000?
The "Average model" Ford Taurus (loaded) cost far less than that - to compete with your cited Japanese, no less!<p>Let's revisit your original quote:

In 1985, if I remember correctly, you could buy an average car, such as a Ford, for around $15,000 or less. Surely the kindly, benevolent, grandfathers who run Ford (and who take their grandaughters to the zoo on Sundays) can do better than the greedy, rapacious, robber barons, especially since they use mass production. The inevitable conclusion is that a new Ford should now cost less than $6000.
<p>
Well, comparing apples to tangerines... yes.
But Ford started Mass Production of the Model A about a century ago, and with demands rising, the price should have risen to keep it a luxury item.
Well, as I remember history, it seems the price of the Model A and later T did not rise much, for 15 years. Despite WWI, and Bankers taking a large part of Ford's pie. (read some history on: Ford, Henry.) A feat later reproduced by the VW Beetle, bringing the economies of scale to the public.<p>But, since FORD is NO LONGER a startup operation, or supplies its own steel (The Rouge plant did), or in a startup industry, it's harder to hold costs down to simply to build demand and attract customers.<p>So, your tangerine cannot be compared. Care to find another economic model?<p>Look instead to solar powered calculators... at $2 each today, once $50+, when first marketed (and I'm NOT comparing to the 1972 "Bomar Brain"!)

[ian]

Peter, a calculater is a bad example, it's small and has almost no material cost to it.
Aluminum plate might be a good example. Like solar panels there's a process to manufacturing aluminum plate, it also has weight and size like solar panels do. It costs to store, ship, and manufacture aluminum plate and it's been around for a very long time.

[peter-f]

OK Ian- point taken!
But it's certainly better than the Ford!<p>Still - I think this thread is DEAD.<p>That said, time to put your money where your true beliefs are: I for one, own a crumb of GE... their next (to be publicized) venture is high-efficiency coal combustion for turbine power generation.<p>My other interest (but still a YEAR or 2 off) is a (minor!) PV installation... no larger than a shed roof.<p>The last FULL size installation I saw was in 1984... (funny 'bout that date, Stephen!)
- with lots of thermal, and a significant PV setup.
But I was put off by the Computer used (remember... 1984 computing was lame compared to today!) to coordinate the system.
Overall, the house was attractive, but Built AROUND the purpose.. not Solar add-ons! And the regulatory requirements for utilities to BUY excess micro-generation was not in place (nor were subsidies or rebates).
Yes, that was one dedicated (and Rich) owner!

[rshayes]

I agree. The automobile model is ridiculous. In fact, that was my point.<p>Chris's mantra, "they aren't in mass production, but when Washington subsidizes them enough to go into mass production, the price will fall" was based on the example of the Ford automobile. Mass production is a one time event, and after a while gives very small reductions in cost for very large expenditures in effort and money. In the automobile, the small increases in prodution effficiency are wiped out by inflation.<p>The solar cell industry has also been in mass production for around 45 years. In 1960, International Rectifier put a solar panel on top of a 1912 Baker electric car. Yes, it was a publicity gag. That solar panel used over 10,000 individual cells. Only a damn fool would use a substantial fraction of the company's annual output for a publicity gag. Since the company is still around, I assume that the managers were not damn fools, and that their annual production was far greater than that, possibly 10 or 20 times. That would be at least 200,000 parts per year. The silicon available at that time was a little over an inch in diameter, so that was a lot of wafers being processed.<p>In 1960, International Rectifier sold several grades of cells, ranging in efficiency from 4 to 12 percent. So their process needed some improvement, it wasn't very consistent.<p>Next, I looked at one of BP Solars data sheets, which I assume is typical of the industry. They don't offer several panels, of varying efficiency. This indicates that their production process is now very consistent. The cells are 5 inch square polycrystalline cells. As near as I can estimate, the efficiency is about 15 percent. The theoretical maximum efficiency for solar cells ias about 22 percent. Their production rate is about 40,000,000 per year.<p>The cells are cut from cast ingots, rather than grown single crystals. This reduces the cost. They are consistent, so the cost will not go lower by reducing rejects. The efficiency is high, so the cost per watt will not go down very much by improving the efficiency. The materials are cited in some references as about 35 percent of the cost. This is where future improvement might be possible.<p>But there is not a whole lot of improvement available here. Silicon the element is common, silicon the material does not exist in nature. Extracting silicon from silicon dioxide takes a great deal on energy and is expensive. Processing silicon is also expensive. Up until now, the feedstock for the solar cell industry was the scraps from the semiconductor industry. Due to the expansion of the solar cell industry, the demand for this scrap has risen to the point where it exceeds the supply, and the price has gone up to about $60 per kilogram. One plant is being built to produce solar grade silicon, but it won't be on line for about a year, and may not have enough capacity to supply the increased demand. I would not be suprised if the price of solar cells stayed constant for a couple of years until the silicon supply situation has been solved.<p>A good fraction of the US production is going to Japan. Creating additional subsidies in this country would probably only result in a bidding war for the available cells. I doubt if it would reduce the price, and might increase it.<p>The cost of electric power in Japan appears to be several times that of power in the US. That makes their economic payback period proportionately shorter, and the benefits greater. There is a substantial market there even at present prices. I would expect that the cells that are avalilable would be sold there until that market is satisfied. The profits from satisfying that demand are where the capital for further expansion of the production capacity can come from.<p>ST Microelectronics may have been exaggerating what they are capable of, but I think that the organic cells have more potential for being extremely cheap. This might make a short lifetime, which I expect to be their disadvantage, a tolerable shortcoming. If the economic and energy paybacks can come down to a year or two, it might be feasible to replace them every ten years rather than every thirty.<p>The thin film cells, Copper-Indium-Diselenide and Cadmium Telluride, use rare materials that probably won't be available. Cadmium, Indium, Selenium, and Tellurium are byproducts of either Zinc or Copper mining. Once the stockpiles are gone, it will take a vast increase in mining activity to support these approaches on a large scale.

[peter-f]

No, Stephen... you still don't get my objection to your example!<p>"...In the automobile, the small increases in prodution effficiency are wiped out by inflation."<p>But that's NOT the cause of the loos of econmomy!<p>The 1984 car had NO computer, NO airbags, sealed-beam headlamps - not Halogens, 1 (not 2) converters, typically NO fuel injection (on a few models, or alternately, throttle-bore fuel injection).<p>You CANNOT compare a 2005 and 1984 model without such notes... YOU MADE NO SUCH NOTES! The 1909 Ford and the 1925 Ford (as the 1952 VW and the 1972 VW) were substantially the same! Improvements were incremental, as economies were FOUND... not by consumer or government DEMAND.<p>Henry Ford was the last to offer an electric start... VW was the last to offer a fuel gauge! You want to compare the last 20 years of autos to THAT??<p>Also:
"... One plant is being built to produce solar grade silicon, but it won't be on line for about a year, and may not have enough capacity to supply the increased demand. "
I don't get it... your argument has shifted... WHAT increased demand???<p>Then you go on:
"...A good fraction of the US production is going to Japan. Creating additional subsidies in this country would probably only result in a bidding war for the available cells. I doubt if it would reduce the price..." <p>But... you don't make note of a resulting increase in manufacturing capacity, either!<p>[ April 29, 2005: Message edited by: peter-f ]</p>

[rshayes]

BP Solar claims that they are in the process of doubling their production capacity to 200MW/yr. Other companies may be doing the same. Some references give the growth rate for the solar cell industry as being around 40 percent per year. Some of the additional production capacity for solar cells may not be used for a year or two, but a 40 percent increase in the market will result in a need for 40 percent more raw material. Present sources, scrap from semiconductor manufacture, are not sufficient to supply this additional demand. It will have to be met by drawing down stockpiles and by new refining capacity. The new refining capacity is expected to be available in about a year.<p>It looks like the raw material supply will limit the total production for about a year or so. If production is limited, and the demand increases, I would expect prices to go higher. Artificially increasing the demand by increasing subsidies would not increase production, but it probably would increase prices.<p>If the market expands by 40 percent during that year, then the output of the new silicon production plant may only sufficient to meet the new demand. In this case, the price of the raw silicon might remain stable at the present level rather than dropping.<p>My point with the automobile industry was one of motivation rather than detail. Chris has been ranting about the "greedy robber barons" who have conspired to keep the price of solar cells high. My point was that the very industry that he set forth as a shining example of price reduction due to mass production was incapable of producing the same price reductions that ocurred in an industry that is supposedly being manipulated.<p>Incidently, my 1984 pickup did have a computer, but it was not fuel injected. When you consider all of the control valves and hoses that were added to the engine to meet the smog requirements, it is entire possible that using fuel injection actually cost less. Within a year or two practically every new car was fuel injected.<p>[ April 29, 2005: Message edited by: stephen ]</p>

[peter-f]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr> Incidently, my 1984 pickup did have a computer, but it was not fuel injected. When you consider all of the control valves and hoses that were added to the engine to meet the smog requirements, it is entire possible that using fuel injection actually cost less. Within a year or two practically every new car was fuel injected. <hr></blockquote><p>At the risk of (Again) changing subjects: That's what FI is used for... and why cars cost so much.. carb's were cheaper and grossly less efficient.
As for the 'computer'... I bet it didn't do much! After all... even a 1940's TV is (in a snese ) a computer... takes a radio signal and decodes it into a picture with sound. And on multiple channels, too!

[rshayes]

Sorry, but I doubt if that carbruetor was cheaper than fuel injection. It was probably about the same. The dealer's price for a replacement was over $900.<p>It was also about as efficient. I got above 25 mpg for quite a few years with that car. The milage dropped when a needle valve eventually eroded and allowed the mixture to run rich. That was after 200,000 miles or so. The replacement for that single valve was about $150.<p>The older carbruetors were simple and cheap. Rebuilts were around $30. When they started tightening the emissions requirements, the carbruetor got a lot more complicated. Eventually, I suspect that the total cost exceeded the cost of fuel injection and that this caused the abrupt change to fuel injection. If there is one thing that causes a car manufacturer to make a change, it is cost.<p>The complexity of the computer is probably about the same. The programming would be a little different.

[peter-f]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by stephen:
Sorry, but I doubt if that carbruetor was cheaper than fuel injection. It was probably about the same. The dealer's price for a replacement was over $900.<p>It was also about as efficient. I got above 25 mpg for quite a few years with that car....<p>The older carbruetors were simple and cheap. <p>The complexity of the computer is probably about the same. The programming would be a little different.<hr></blockquote><p>Well, we're substantially in agreement!. BUT, again... the CArb at $900 includes install& tuning, they Never came with valves pre-adjusted... just in default "this should work" positions.<p>The programming would be a little different... but each "difference" requires days of writing and testing.. NOT free, or even cheap. And each 'improved' sensor needs more programming edits!<p>Auto industry Economies of "improving parts" worked up to the 1960's... then add-ons (bells, buzzers, cup-holders and DVD players) took over (along with UAW medical & retirement bennies) to push prices beyond total Parts costs. <p>Older carbs were cheap (VW is a better example)
and that leads to YOUR particular experience with Your vehicle... It's NOT Typical... and economic models are based on Typical samples.<p>As for MPG... there's a move afooot to re-make the EPA ratings because they don't reflect "reality" (IOW, the way Americans Squander fuel). Seems everyone wants their living room on wheels!
I oppose this... in MY atypical case, my 22/26MPG vehicle is getting overall MPG of 28.2.
So- how would YOU structure a policy based on these 2 divergent data? <p>That's my case with all the above debates (cars or PV cells)... the Issues aren't defined prior to the debate, and the debaters are swapping them out to make a point... before they run away after getting the last word in.<p>(The method resembles Congress!)

[rshayes]

Hell No... that $900 was the PART cost!