Solar cells down to details...

[Chris Smith]

We need a new column here on the Forum called Myth busters.

“Solar cant be done” would be the first topic, followed by the thousand myths presented here on this thread alone? <p>My favorite is “silica is expensive to produce”, or “We already produce solar cells in mass production” .........and thats why the Japanese are competing and have the lion share of the market, because we produce sooo many??

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> When we ship a billion square feet a year, mass production will reduce the cost of solar, and thats not even including tomorrow’s technological break throughs.<p>Like coke cans and beer bottles, its dirt cheap. <p>And we haven’t even touched the new “to beat down reasons” why the new types of solar cells also cant be done? <p>Instead of negativity, a little research goes a long way, on your dime, not mine. For me it very, very old news and well known data. <p>But then there is always a new generation, fresh and devoid of an education or knowledge. <p> A lot more wasted time can be had arguing why it cant be done, VS why it can be done. <p>**************<p>AMSTERDAM (Reuters) -- A major European chip maker said this week it had discovered new ways to produce solar cells which will generate electricity twenty times cheaper than today's solar panels.
STMicroelectronics, Europe's largest semiconductor maker, said that, by the end of next year, it expected to have made the first stable prototypes of the new cells, which could then be put into production.
Most of today's solar cells, which convert sunlight into electricity, are produced with expensive silicon, the same material used in most semiconductors.
The French-Italian company expects cheaper organic materials such as plastics to bring down the price of producing energy. Over a typical 20-year life span of a solar cell, a single produced watt should cost as little as $0.20, compared with the current $4.
The new solar cells would even be able to compete with electricity generated by burning fossil fuels such as oil and gas, which costs about $0.40 per watt, said Salvo Coffa, who heads ST's research group that is developing the technology.
"This would revolutionize the field of solar energy generation," he said.
ST's trick is to use materials that are less efficient in producing energy from sunlight but which are extremely cheap.
This would revolutionize the field of solar energy generation Coffa said the materials should be able to turn at least 10 percent of the sun's energy into power, compared with some 20 percent for today's expensive silicon-based cells.
"We believe we can demonstrate 10 percent efficiency by the end of 2004," Coffa said.
Following that, ST and others would need to develop production technologies to make solar cells and panels in large quantities to achieve the $0.20 per watt target, he said.
"Our target is fixed at $0.20," said Coffa, who expects no major technological difficulties in going from prototypes to mass-produced commercial products.
Renewable energy is an essential part of research for ST, which says its chip and material expertise can be used to develop future solar cells and fuel cells.
ST said three weeks ago it had found a new way to produce tiny yet extremely efficient fuel cells that could power a mobile phone for 20 days.
**********************
http://www.technologyreview.com/article ... 04.asp?p=1
On the test benches of Konarka Technologies in Lowell, MA, a new kind of solar cell is being put through its paces. Strips of flexible plastic all but indistinguishable from photographic film bask under high-intensity lights. These strips, about 10 centimeters long and five centimeters wide, are converting the light into electricity. Wire a few of them together, and they generate enough power to run a small fan.
Solar cells, of course, are nothing new. But until now, solar power has required expensive silicon-based panels that have relegated it, largely, to niche applications like satellites and high-end homes. What's remarkable about Konarka's power-producing films is that they are cheap and easy to make, using a production line of coating machines and rollers. The process is more akin to the quick-and-dirty workings of a modern printing press than to the arcane rituals performed in the clean rooms of silicon solar-panel manufacturing. The company literally has rolls of the stuff; its engineers plan to cut off usable sheets as if it were saran wrap.
Konarka's technology is just one example of a new type of printable solar cell, or photovoltaic, that promises to go almost anywhere, paving the way for affordable and ubiquitous solar power. Not only are the cells inexpensive to produce-less than half the cost of conventional panels, for the same amount of power-but they're also lightweight and flexible, so they can be built into all sorts of surfaces. Flexible films laminated onto laptops and cell phones could provide a steady trickle of electricity, reducing the need to plug in for power. Solar cells mixed into automotive paint could allow the sun to charge the batteries of hybrid cars, reducing their need for fuel. Eventually, such solar cells could even cover buildings, providing power for the electricity grid.<p>*****************
Spray-On Solar-Power Cells Are True Breakthrough
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... astic.html
Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News
January 14, 2005
Scientists have invented a plastic solar cell that can turn the sun's power into electrical energy, even on a cloudy day.
The plastic material uses nanotechnology and contains the first solar cells able to harness the sun's invisible, infrared rays. The breakthrough has led theorists to predict that plastic solar cells could one day become five times more efficient than current solar cell technology.
Like paint, the composite can be sprayed onto other materials and used as portable electricity. A sweater coated in the material could power a cell phone or other wireless devices. A hydrogen-powered car painted with the film could potentially convert enough energy into electricity to continually recharge the car's battery.
The researchers envision that one day "solar farms" consisting of the plastic material could be rolled across deserts to generate enough clean energy to supply the entire planet's power needs.
"The sun that reaches the Earth's surface delivers 10,000 times more energy than we consume," said Ted Sargent, an electrical and computer engineering professor at the University of Toronto. Sargent is one of the inventors of the new plastic material.
"If we could cover 0.1 percent of the Earth's surface with [very efficient] large-area solar cells," he said, "we could in principle replace all of our energy habits with a source of power which is clean and renewable."
Infrared Power
Plastic solar cells are not new. But existing materials are only able to harness the sun's visible light. While half of the sun's power lies in the visible spectrum, the other half lies in the infrared spectrum.
The new material is the first plastic composite that is able to harness the infrared portion.
"Everything that's warm gives off some heat. Even people and animals give off heat," Sargent said. "So there actually is some power remaining in the infrared [spectrum], even when it appears to us to be dark outside."
The researchers combined specially designed nano particles called quantum dots with a polymer to make the plastic that can detect energy in the infrared.
With further advances, the new plastic "could allow up to 30 percent of the sun's radiant energy to be harnessed, compared to 6 percent in today's best plastic solar cells," said Peter Peumans, a Stanford University electrical engineering professor, who studied the work.
Electrical Sweaters
The new material could make technology truly wireless.
"We have this expectation that we don't have to plug into a phone jack anymore to talk on the phone, but we're resigned to the fact that we have to plug into an electrical outlet to recharge the batteries," Sargent said. "That's only communications wireless, not power wireless."
He said the plastic coating could be woven into a shirt or sweater and used to charge an item like a cell phone.
"A sweater is already absorbing all sorts of light both in the infrared and the visible," said Sargent. "Instead of just turning that into heat, as it currently does, imagine if it were to turn that into electricity."
Other possibilities include energy-saving plastic sheeting that could be unfurled onto a rooftop to supply heating needs, or solar cell window coating that could let in enough infrared light to power home appliances.
Cost-Effectiveness
Ultimately, a large amount of the sun's energy could be harnessed through "solar farms" and used to power all our energy needs, the researchers predict.
"This could potentially displace other sources of electrical production that produce greenhouse gases, such as coal," Sargent said.
In Japan, the world's largest solar-power market, the government expects that 50 percent of residential power supply will come from solar power by 2030, up from a fraction of a percent today.
The biggest hurdle facing solar power is cost-effectiveness.
At a current cost of 25 to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour, solar power is significantly more expensive than conventional electrical power for residences. Average U.S. residential power prices are less than ten cents per kilowatt-hour, according to experts.
But that could change with the new material.
"Flexible, roller-processed solar cells have the potential to turn the sun's power into a clean, green, convenient source of energy," said John Wolfe, a nanotechnology venture capital investor at Lux Capital in New York City.<p>[ April 26, 2005: Message edited by: Chris Smith ]</p>

[rshayes]

The articles are interesting. These ideas for cells were mentioned on the first page of this thread, but Chris was so busy with his political ranting that it took him two weeks to understand what was said.<p>An efficiency of 10 percent may not be unreasonable. Whether ST Microelectronics actually achieved this by the end of 2004 is unknown. The ST web site does not seem to have any further references to this project.<p>There is a reference to a stability problem with the cells. Again, there is no indication if it has been solved.<p>That will probably be a limit on the lifetime of cells using organic materials. A plastic inert enough to be immune to ultraviolet light might also be insensitive to radiation. Since the energy content of plastics should be fairly low, a lifetime of ten or so years may be acceptable.

[ian]

Well, I guess this is as close as Chris is going to get to posting real data. SMTmicroelectronics is famous for "PR press releases". You can find other exaggerated press releases they've made in other ares of technology that they never developed.
The process of producing panels at a lower price is known. SMT pretended the idea was theirs and made some press releases. You know the kind of press releases I'm talking about? You see them in nuts and volts...... like "IBM creates breakthrough in quantam computing", it may happen, it may not. <p> A number of companies have spent research money on that technology leading to a dead end. The panels made at this lower cost are less efficient and the space needed to house 2 or 3 times the number of panels + the shipping costs made the technology uncompetetive. Other companies did some research, and some companies actually manufactured panels, and made similar press releases but I'm not aware of any companies doing any research or production on that technology anymore.<p> We all know it isn't hard to come up with this kind of stuff on the net. I'll try and debunk whatever crap gets posted in this forum.

[Chris Smith]

Well actually it all old news to me, including all the best of the myths produced here on the forum. <p>“We mass produce solar cells” some one said. Yeah right, We mass produced ten times the surface area in chrome, three shifts a day , 52 weeks a year, compared to the total shipped surface area of solar cells in the US. And you complain its too expensive? <p>“Silica is expensive to make, and it’s a power hog to produce”,..... right up there with aluminum cans and glass bottles, both of which are thousands of square surface area of materials compered to solar cell production. <p>And the myths went on for weeks. But I enjoyed them all, and then some of you even found out it’s the 21st century, and not the 20th and while they were all so busy naysaying, the price of crude even went up. See you at the pump this summer? <p>And you could have been doing something positive?<p>How many myths, let me count the ways.............. Lets read them all shall we?<p>Not all of them were bad, some just worse than others, and some were down right crystal ball picks. <p>"Obtaining the same with simple compounds other than silicon; is that difficult ?"
If it were easy, we would not need Oil.<p>There are organic materials the can be used to make junctions similar to those in silicon. Unfortunately, these are not "simple". They are being used to build organic LED displays. These materials are rather exotic organic compounds and, since there is no large established market for them, they are not cheap. They probably could be used to make solar cells, but a square foot of display can command a much higher price than a square foot of solar cell. The higher material cost is worth it here. For solar cells, the silicon cost is lower than the organic material cost and the efficiency is better.<p>
Traditional silicon solar cells may be a loser from an energy standpoint. Melting silicon is a high temperature process using electric heating of some form (either radiation or induction). Generating that electricity is not very efficient, possibly in the 35 percent range. Diffusion furnaces are also electrically heated. The time required to recover the energy needed to produce a silicon cell may be unreasonably long.<p>Anybody stop to think about the effects of all this shading from "massive" solar panels on the ecostructure below?
<p>This one is 100 square feet, not meters?
Your ~10m² shed area can yield 1 Kilowatt.
It is about twenty - 50W bulbs.
8 hours of sun could be ~8 hours of those lamps on.<p>The large scale production of silicon solar cells might require the expenditure of massive amounts of fossil fuels and may never break even from an energy standpoint.<p>
The arc furnace will require a great deal of energy to operate, and this is electrical energy, which must be generated by a fairly inefficient process. Much of this energy goes into cycling the mass of the furnace up to its operating temperature and down again. Some of it goes into the extracted silicon.<p>When you cascade a chain of inefficient processes to produce a device with limited efficiency, it is entirely possible that the energy payback time will be very long, and possibly never. I don't know if a really complete analysis has ever been done.<p>Strangely, I've seen no mention in this thread of the costs of storage batteries, inverters, or changes to the existing AC distribution infrastructure.
My local utility uses mostly good 'ol USA coal to produce my <9¢¢ per kW electricity<p>
1) Replacement of bad, failing solar cells.
2) The cost of borrowing $100,000 for 20 years.
2a) After buying a $200,000 house who has another$100,000 for a solar system?
3) The cost of insurance for the cells against
theft, wind, storms, vandalism, etc.
4) The cost of a support system, cables
batteries, inverters, power switching etc.
5) Support structures, house re-inforcing.
6) Land.
7) Alarms system for $50,000 worth of panels in
your backyard.
Replacement batteries and parts. This one
especially cracks me up, most pro-solar
luddites assume nothing in a solar system
ever fails.
9) Regular maintenance, cleaning the cells,
checking the system etc.
10) Have I left anything out? <p>A solar panel system capable of powering and heating a reasonable sized house with the same appliances would cost far more than $100,000.<p>My rough estimate for a full system handling heating and air conditioning is $200,000. Thats the initial outlay. Monthly maintenance costs would be......
$1000.00 interest
$3000.00 amortized depreciation of system
$300.00 monthly maintenance
$ 50.00 insurance
$????<p>"Rebates".....
So the taxpayers pay for the system and that makes it viable? The stupidity of this argument is obvious.<p>A 3KW "peak" system will generate about an average of 425 watt/hours per day in this configuration. Thats 156kWH per year. Lets say you pay 20 cents per kWH for a yearly savings of $31.00.
IN 161 YEARS THE SYSTEM WILL PAY FOR ITSELF! <p>"The price drop theory"
The price drop theory goes like this.........
Everything you spend billions of dollars on makes the price of it drop exponentially.
The theory is based on false information and a focus on success stories. But for every success story there's untold failures. Here's where the confusion lies.........<p>"There are two methods, or means, and only two, whereby man's needs and desires can be satisfied. One is the production and exchange of wealth; this is the economic means. The other is the uncompensated appropriation of wealth produced by others; this is the political means." - Albert Jay Nock<p>You also seem to be suggesting the companies making the solar panels today make them by hand, and don't use an assembly line. You also suggest no other company has figured out the opportunity of making cheap panels. This is YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORY. But don't worry, it's a very common theory among solar panel advocates. I have experience, like I said I wouldn't discuss this with you personally, I've been through it too many times.<p>My conclusion is that solar cells are already being produced in mass production (probably for 20 years) and that further large cost reductions based on sheer volume are unlikely. They have already occurred.<p>And one dead on accurate truth.................Mass produce them.<p>Economics is always the driver- make them "affordable" and they will sell. However, when you extrapolate the current $4/watt initial cost, add installation and control equipment, over 20 years, the $/KWH is very attractive. It's one of the better investments you could make<p>[ April 27, 2005: Message edited by: Chris Smith ]</p>

[rshayes]

The BP Solar web site indicates that they are doubling their production capacity to 200 MW/yr over the next year. Thus their present capacity is 100 MW/yr and it is either fully utilized or close to it.<p>Their cells are 5 inch square, polycrystalline cells that produce 2.36 watts per cell. Their present production is thus about 42,350,000 cells per year. The total area of these cells works out to around 7,352,000 square feet. This is one company of several in the industry.<p>At $4 /watt, these cells cost under $9 each.<p>At $4 /watt, the 3 KW installation referred to by jwax would have $12,000 worth of cells in it. This is consistent with the $15,000 price including inverters and other equipment as well.<p>In 1985, the cost of solar cells was $10 /watt. After 20 years of conspiracy, the greedy, rapacious, robber barons managed to keep the price of solar cells above $4 /watt by avoiding putting them in mass production.<p>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>Tinkerbelle is fading away fast. All those who honestly believe that you can buy a new Ford for $6000 please clap your hands.

[peter-f]

"In 1985, if I remember correctly, you could buy an average car, such as a Ford, for around $15,000 or less."<p>WHA???? Which luxury model was this... a Chevette was $6000 - made in USA.<p>A 2005 Kia is 50% more. Imported.<p>PLEASE: When arguing economics... compare apples to apples. That's how the Social Security issue gets fuel... constantly changing the focus and confusing the issue. (And I promise to stay away from political issues unrelated to Solar from now on!)

[ian]

I've posted various numbers and scenarios indicating even if solar panels were FREE, yes FREE, (check this Chris, before you post another "prices will come down" filibuster).
If the panels were FREE, the install cost + the financing cost + the support devices cost, would be MORE than your savings over the full expected lifetime of the panels.
But like I said, when you argue with solar panel advocates forget about logic and truth.

[ian]

Oh yeah and Chris, some of the "myths" you posted are verifiable data which I've provided.
You don't dispute numbers because you can't.
In fact, you've provided very little info in your 20 or so replies.
I call people like you environmental terrorists.
You misinform, confuse and befuddle important issues so much so that's it becomes hard to make important decisions critical to the nation's environmental walfare.<p>Here's another little bit of math for ya,
if 200,000,000 americans bought a 6kHW solar system, got the panels for FREE, yes FREE, the
install cost would be $10,000
The total cost would put Americans in debt by another 2 trillion dollars.
The energy produced wouldn't be a fraction of the nations need for energy and the panels would degrade and need to be replaced after a few decades.

[ian]

SOLAR FRAUD website including verifiable data on "peak" output of a panel vs. actual performance.............<p>http://www.energyadvocate.com/ordrbook.htm

[Chris Smith]

This is the myth page for sure,
Ian. You’re the proxy chairman. <p>We produced plastic items by the square foot, doped in Three expensive metals [copper/|nickel/ chrome] using a 1/4 mile long assembly line consisting of over 70 tanks full of expensive fluids costing a lot more to chrome plate Teflon than any solar cell could possibly cost to make. <p>We produce over one hundred thousand square feet of this each shift, 5 days a week, for pennies per square foot. <p>At present We don’t produce one tenth of this in solar cell footage, per year. <p>Gee, I wonder why it cost soo much? <p>Each “pennies per item” if it were a cell would give you back a return and saving in electricity in one year, and 19 more years of profit, but the funny part is that all your logic amounts to “Well Its cheaper to sell my soul and country to the arabs than to do the right thing”?<p>We can even spend a few more bucks today as the price of a barrel continues to rise, to wean us of our bad habits, pollution, wars for oil, or just independence and still come out on top.<p>Because we never consider what it really costs, as everything in this country is subsidized by some thing or another. But they sound good when making a pseudo argument against, but never for? <p> It seems spending less money at a discount today, [like at wall mart] without all the hidden costs built in like 1500 soldiers lives, or pollution, or being bent over a barrel by big business and DC, is easier than doing the right thing because it cost less than solar, or solar is a hassle, or one of those other thousand myths? <p>But aside from your philosophy of giving away the country, remaining dependant on the arabs, and being willing to have enough children to send off to war, You don’t have a thing to say FOR solar and why we need it, and why it can be done, and why we should go ahead with it despite all your pessimist and ignorant views, because you have little vision, and even less real world experience. <p>Your argument holds no water, because you have nothing to offer.

[ian]

Lets take a look at what Chris says after his long and wing post on "Myths".................<p>"Economics is always the driver- make them "affordable" and they will sell. However, when you extrapolate the current $4/watt initial cost, add installation and control equipment, over 20 years, the $/KWH is very attractive. It's one of the better investments you could make."<p>Sound really good doesn't it? If only he could back it up with some credible numbers!
Would you believe a guy who can't back up a statement like this without any supporting numbers or references?<p>Would you believe a guy who says........
"In 2002 only 10,755 square feet of solar cells was shipped in the us by the top ten producing companies. Hardly mass production."
When in reality 1 company alone produced 7,000,000+ square feet?<p>Would you believe a guy who says..........
"The Mark up is in the 1000% range at present."
but can't back it up with any facts? <p>Would you believe a guy who says...........
"So for example if you take the minimums of 5 hours a day times 292 days [1460 hours] and add in the 20% of the remaining 72 days at 20% times five hours you have 1500 plus hours a year to produce electricity at 1000 watts per hour."
You need the sun staying stationary over the panels for 5 hours a day to produce that power!<p>Here's more info from the Chris archive.........
"In some of the cities of California, they pay between 25 cents and 35 cents per kilo of power."
Gee, would that be a peak cost at night when the panel doesn't produce any power at all?

Add this to the above math.........
"In the desert south west you can double these figures."<p>How about this gem.............
"Actually the concept of storing Solar is a waste of time and money. As we all know peak power is used during the day, when your away from your home at work, consuming that power for your work and other factories."
Really? Does that mean the utility will buy my solar power at .35 cents? Or would they buy it for the 2.6 cents stephen gets?

How about this...........
"Maintenance? A car wash every couple of years or just a garden hose, glass is soo hard to clean? and then perhaps the maid, does windows?"
So if my 6kWH inverter that cost $2000.00 breaks down I should spray it with a hose? <p>Who believes this one?
"My neighbors house uses five bucks worth of electricity per month, keeping his house warm all winter.
And we get American temperatures down to minus 27, thats not Canadian temps, [like your discounted dollars] that F."
Yeah, right.<p>How about this one............
"Southern roof not needed."
You wanna point your panels north? This one gave me a real chuckle.

[Chris Smith]

The many losses from the usage of Solar power<p>1] 10,000 new American jobs to produce new assembly lines and work them [for starters]
2] 100,000 new American installer jobs [for starters]
3] A whole new industry which employs Americans
4] 1,000,000,000 square feet of new cells each year
5] 10,000,000,000 watts of new energy each year
6] $1,500,000 per hour not going abroad [First year]
7] $3,000,000,000 per hour saving the second year
8] $4,500,000,000 per hour saving the third Year, etc
9] Less power plants needed each year
10] A turn around in fuel fired generators in the US
11] The world forgives us for polluting it so much<p>
And then there is the Down side of going solar?<p>No more Oil wars
No more Arabs back yard parties and BBQs
Less over all pollution
100% of the money stays at home
Foreign debt shrinks each day
The Arabs go broke, and have to find a real job. <p>We definitely shouldn’t go solar, too many negatives.
And besides, it cant be done for under 4 bucks per watt, or they must face the sun to produce, reasons enough? <p>Sales of the ten top sellers of solar...
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.rene ... ble21.html<p>Always a good laugh, thanks Ian.<p>[ April 28, 2005: Message edited by: Chris Smith ]</p>

[ian]

WOW! I posted at 4:00, you posted at 5:18!
You came up with all that info in 78 minutes?
I wonder how accurate it is???????
What's the cost of that?
Will the panels need any maintenance?
What happens year to year as the 1,000,000,000 panels start to derate?
So many questions..........
But I don't need to ask, any fool can see you're pulling these numbers out of the air with a wreckless disregard for reality.

[Chris Smith]

Live and learn, its ancient history for the rest of us. The advantage of age. <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>And I love your maintenance B.S., I wash my solar cells with soap and water. <p>But then your young and naive.<p>[ April 28, 2005: Message edited by: Chris Smith ]</p>

[rshayes]

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.