SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Alighieri who wrote (604058)3/17/2011 1:10:11 PM
From: bentway  Respond to of 1575981
 
"History of solar cells

en.wikipedia.org

( That first 1954 solar cell is STILL producing electricity today, 57 years later! )

Main article: Timeline of solar cells

The term "photovoltaic" comes from the Greek f?? (phos) meaning "light", and "voltaic", meaning electric, from the name of the Italian physicist Volta, after whom a unit of electro-motive force, the volt, is named. The term "photo-voltaic" has been in use in English since 1849.[1]

The photovoltaic effect was first recognized in 1839 by French physicist A. E. Becquerel. However, it was not until 1883 that the first photovoltaic cell was built, by Charles Fritts, who coated the semiconductor selenium with an extremely thin layer of gold to form the junctions. The device was only around 1% efficient. In 1888 Russian physicist Aleksandr Stoletov built the first photoelectric cell (based on the outer photoelectric effect discovered by Heinrich Hertz earlier in 1887). Albert Einstein explained the photoelectric effect in 1905 for which he received the Nobel prize in Physics in 1921. Russell Ohl patented the modern junction semiconductor solar cell in 1946,[2] which was discovered while working on the series of advances that would lead to the transistor.

[edit]Bell produces the first practical cell

The modern photovoltaic cell was developed in 1954 at Bell Laboratories.[3] The highly efficient solar cell was first developed by Daryl Chapin, Calvin Souther Fuller and Gerald Pearson in 1954 using a diffused silicon p-n junction.[4] At first, cells were developed for toys and other minor uses, as the cost of the electricity they produced was very high - in relative terms, a cell that produced 1 watt of electrical power in bright sunlight cost about $250, comparing to $2 to $3 for a coal plant.

Solar cells were rescued from obscurity by the suggestion to add them to the Vanguard I satellite. In the original plans, the satellite would be powered only by battery, and last a short time while this ran down. By adding cells to the outside of the fuselage, the mission time could be extended with no major changes to the spacecraft or its power systems. There was some skepticism at first, but in practice the cells proved to be a huge success, and solar cells were quickly designed into many new satellites, notably Bell's own Telstar.

Improvements were slow over the next two decades, and the only widespread use was in space applications where their power-to-weight ratio was higher than any competing technology. However, this success was also the reason for slow progress; space users were willing to pay anything for the best possible cells, there was no reason to invest in lower-cost solutions if this would reduce efficiency. Instead, the price of cells was determined largely by the semiconductor industry; their move to integrated circuits in the 1960s led to the availability of larger boules at lower relative prices. As their price fell, the price of the resulting cells did as well. However these effects were limited, and by 1971 cell costs were estimated to be $100 a watt.[5]

[edit]Berman's price reductions

In the late 1960s, Elliot Berman was investigating a new method for producing the silicon feedstock in a ribbon process.

However, he found little interest in the project and was unable to gain the funding needed to develop it. In a chance encounter, he was later introduced to a team at Exxon who were looking for projects 30 years in the future. The group had concluded that electrical power would be much more expensive by 2000, and felt that this increase in price would make new alternative energy sources more attractive, and solar was the most interesting among these. In 1969, Berman joined the Linden, New Jersey Exxon lab, Solar Power Corporation (SPC).[6]
His first major effort was to canvas the potential market to see what possible uses for a new product were, and they quickly found that if the dollars per watt was reduced from then-current $100/watt to about $20/watt there was significant demand. Knowing that his ribbon concept would take years to develop, the team started looking for ways to hit the $20 price point using existing materials.[6]

The first improvement was the realization that the existing cells were based on standard semiconductor manufacturing process, even though that was not ideal. This started with the boule, cutting it into disks called wafers, polishing the wafers, and then, for cell use, coating them with an anti-reflective layer. Berman noted that the rough-sawn wafers already had a perfectly suitable anti-reflective front surface, and by printing the electrodes directly on this surface, two major steps in the cell processing were eliminated. The team also explored ways to improve the mounting of the cells into arrays, eliminating the expensive materials and hand wiring used in space applications with a printed circuit board on the back, acrylic plastic on the front, and silicone based glue between the two potting the cells. But the largest improvement in price point was Berman's realization that existing silicon was effectively "too good" for solar cell use; the minor imperfections that would ruin a boule (or individual wafer) for electronics would have little effect in the solar application.[7]

Putting all of these changes into practice, the company started buying up "reject" silicon from existing manufacturers at very low cost. By using the largest wafers available, thereby reducing the amount of wiring for a given panel area, and packaging them into panels using their new methods, by 1973 SPC was producing panels at $10 and selling them at $20, a fivefold decrease in prices in two years.

[edit]Navigation market

SPC approached companies making buoys as a natural market for their products, but found a curious situation. The primary company in the business was Automatic Power, a battery manufacturer. Realizing that solar cells might eat into their battery profits, Automatic purchased the rights to earlier solar cell designs and suppressed them. Seeing there was no interest there, SPC turned to Tideland Signal, another battery company formed by ex-Automatic managers. Tideland introduced a solar-powered buoy and was soon ruining Automatic's business.
The timing could not be better; the rapid increase in the number of offshore oil platforms and loading facilities produced an enormous market among the oil companies. As Tideland's fortunes improved, Automatic started looking for their own supply of solar panels. They found Bill Yerks of Solar Power International (SPI) in California, who was looking for a market. SPI was soon bought out by one of its largest customers, the ARCO oil giant, forming ARCO Solar. ARCO Solar's factory in Camarillo, California was the first dedicated to building solar panels, and has been in continual operation from its purchase by ARCO in 1977 to this day.

This market, combined with the 1973 oil crisis, led to a curious situation. Oil companies were now cash-flush due to their huge profits during the crisis, but were also acutely aware that their future success would depend on some other form of power. Over the next few years, the major oil companies started a number of solar firms, and were for decades the largest producers of solar panels. Exxon, ARCO, Shell, Amoco (later purchased by BP) and Mobil all had major solar divisions during the 1970s and 80s. Technology companies also had some investment, including General Electric, Motorola, IBM, Tyco and RCA.[8]

[edit]Further improvements

In the time since Berman's work, improvements have brought production costs down under $1 a watt, with wholesale costs on the order of $2. "Balance of system" costs are now more than the panels themselves, with large commercial arrays falling to around $5 a watt, fully commissioned, in 2010.
As the semiconductor industry moved to ever-larger boules, older equipment became available at fire-sale prices. Cells have grown in size as older equipment became available on the surplus market; ARCO Solar's original panels used cells with 2 to 4 inch diameter. Panels in the 1990s and early 2000s generally used 5 inch wafers, and since 2008 almost all new panels use 6 inch cells. Another major change was the move to polycrystalline silicon. This material has less efficiency, but is less expensive to produce in bulk. The widespread introduction of flat screen televisions in the late 1990s and early 2000s led to the wide availability of large sheets of high-quality glass, used on the front of the panels.
Other technologies have also come to market. First Solar has grown to become the largest panel manufacturer, in terms of yearly power produced, using a thin-film cell sandwiched between two layers of glass. This was the first product to beat $1 a watt for production costs.[9] Since then a glut of polycrystalline silicon has pushed prices of conventional panels into the same range."



To: Alighieri who wrote (604058)3/17/2011 1:47:23 PM
From: i-node  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1575981
 

That's very old data...calculated at nearly $9/W, and at 20 years life (the life expectancy of these components is much higher than 20 years, which is why panels come with a 25 year warranty)...in the end the author of this rather conservative and old article predicts precisely what is happening.


Okay, my "very old data" is $9.00/W, and your "new" data is $8.95/W. If in fact my data is "very old", that suggests a TINY $0.05 drop over a long period of time (what I provided, I believe, was 2007 data).

As to 20 years versus 30 or 40, it just doesn't matter. If you're familiar with the concept of time value of money, whatever happens 30 or 40 years out is so heavily discounted it is just immaterial to the calculation.

The bottom line is that no matter how you manipulate these figures, you can't turn them into a sensible investment. While it is true that scale will help, the fact that we're 30 years into solar energy and costs are still so out of whack suggests that the problem is more than one of scale.

Perhaps one day it can be a sensible energy source (although never more than a mere supplement to other technologies such as fusion), but not in my lifetime or yours.



To: Alighieri who wrote (604058)3/17/2011 1:58:29 PM
From: Tenchusatsu1 Recommendation  Respond to of 1575981
 
Al, > the life expectancy of these components is much higher than 20 years

I hope they don't calculate "life expantancy" the same way they calculate it for CFL bulbs. The ones I owned tended to burn out much sooner than expected.

Even the CA state government is discovering this "inconvenient truth":

Calif. Discovers Fluorescent Lightbulbs Burning Out Faster Than Predicted

State government concludes that it will not realize the savings it expected

dailytech.com

Tenchusatsu



To: Alighieri who wrote (604058)3/25/2011 12:43:33 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1575981
 
So a $45,000 5KW solar energy system produces about 119,246 KWH of electric over its lifespan meaning the average cost equals $0.38 per KWH.

If you never have any maintenance or repairs, and if you ignore interest/time value of money.

The relatively high solar energy costs in comparison to conventional fuels should improve with utility rebates and government tax incentives.

That's not really the cost improving, that's someone else paying part of the cost. From the perspective of "should I buy this" there may be little or no difference, but if its going to be broadly deployed the total cost doesn't go down because of subsidies or tax incentives.