Prev: Wimpy Banach-Tarski paradox - should it break my intuition?
Next: Surely You're Joking, Mr. Zeilberger?
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 15 Feb 2010 14:28
Jonathan Thornburg wrote:

> However, the long-term trends are that solar-power technology is
> rapidly developing, making solar power steadily cheaper over time,
> whereas most other types of power plants are getting steadily more
> expensive.

The limitation for PV conversion comes down to 2 factors - efficiency
and cost per sq metre. With the former, 20% is easily achievable and to
date the most efficient are around 40%. But let's stick with a modest
20% and make a couple of assumptions. The first is that material costs
will not be major constraint. This seems reasonable given major research
into the use of alternative materials rather than rare metals like
Indium. The second assumption is that the "ultimate" fabrication process
is more like screen printing that vacuum deposition.

How cheap could our hypothetical 1 sq metre 20% efficient PV panel be
made? If we compare it to the cost of 1 sq m of LCD TV screen, which is
quite a complex bit of tech, then maybe $200. That immediately gives us
a price of $1 per peal Watt.

I suggest that making a PV panel by a printing process will ultimately
be less than one tenth of this price in genuine mass production and that
the final costs of a PV installation circa 2025 will not be determined
by the cost of panels, but by the ironwork and grid connections.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Gerard Westendorp on 15 Feb 2010 18:09
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
[..]

> How cheap could our hypothetical 1 sq metre 20% efficient PV panel be
> made?

One important cost factor is energy. You need quite pure silicon, made
form SiO2 (sand). This purification is unfortunately energy intensive. I
think they changed the process now, but the old process was repeatedly
melting it.

One thing that will help is making the layer very thin.

Gerard

From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 16 Feb 2010 03:05
Gerard Westendorp wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> [..]
>
>> How cheap could our hypothetical 1 sq metre 20% efficient PV panel be
>> made?
>
> One important cost factor is energy. You need quite pure silicon, made
> form SiO2 (sand). This purification is unfortunately energy intensive. I
> think they changed the process now, but the old process was repeatedly
> melting it.
>
> One thing that will help is making the layer very thin.
>
> Gerard
>
But thin film technology relies more on exotic inks than processed
Silicon. For example, Nanosolar:

http://www.nanosolar.com/technology

I have heard, but cannot verify, that they can make PV panels for
70c/Watt. However, they charge what the market can stand. The bad news
is that their ink is a pretty exotic mix that uses some rare elements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanosolar

"Nanosolar claims to have produced "the world's lowest-cost solar
panel."[31] This cost has been variously reported as "cell costs [of]
only $0.36 per peak watt,"[32] a "raw uninstalled cost of solar
electricity [of] about 40 to 60 cents per watt,"[26] and an "aim to
produce the panels for 99 cents a watt."[33] It has been reported that
Nanosolar CEO Martin Roscheisen declined to comment on the $0.36 per
peak watt figure.[25] It should be noted that a cell cost of $0.36/watt
is consistent with a wholesale solar panel cost of $0.99/watt and
Nanosolar has not been criticized for being inconsistent in its claims;
rather, skeptics have expressed doubt that Nanosolar can produce a
product at the costs claimed in the foreseeable future.[25]. Meanwhile,
thin-film competitor, First Solar, has announced the achievement of
$0.98/watt panel production cost"

Ultimately, screen printing PV cells using semiconductor inks must be
the way to go. What I would like to know is the cost of the ink, per sq
metre.

Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Yevgen Barsukov on 17 Feb 2010 04:27
[Moderator's note: Quoted text snipped. -P.H.]

On Feb 15, 1:28 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

> How cheap could our hypothetical 1 sq metre 20% efficient PV panel be
> made? If we compare it to the cost of 1 sq m of LCD TV screen, which is
> quite a complex bit of tech, then maybe $200. That immediately gives us
> a price of $1 per peal Watt.
>
> I suggest that making a PV panel by a printing process will ultimately
> be less than one tenth of this price in genuine mass production and that
> the final costs of a PV installation circa 2025 will not be determined
> by the cost of panels, but by the ironwork and grid connections.

1W/$ with 10% efficiency is already history, since that is why CdTe
cells are being sold for.

As for going the next order of magnitude cheaper - it is coming.
Slury custing, and no rare elements, already 9% efficiency.
See kesterite cells, Cu2ZnSn(S,Se):
http://www.physorg.com/news185093054.html

Regards,
Yevgen

From: jimp on 17 Feb 2010 04:27
In sci.physics Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Jonathan Thornburg wrote:
>
>> However, the long-term trends are that solar-power technology is
>> rapidly developing, making solar power steadily cheaper over time,
>> whereas most other types of power plants are getting steadily more
>> expensive.
>
> The limitation for PV conversion comes down to 2 factors - efficiency
> and cost per sq metre. With the former, 20% is easily achievable and to
> date the most efficient are around 40%. But let's stick with a modest
> 20% and make a couple of assumptions. The first is that material costs
> will not be major constraint. This seems reasonable given major research
> into the use of alternative materials rather than rare metals like
> Indium. The second assumption is that the "ultimate" fabrication process
> is more like screen printing that vacuum deposition.

[Moderator's note: Quoted text snipped. -P.H.]

Don't forget the cost of the fail safe inverter contoller you have to
have to connect to the grid. They aren't cheap.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Wimpy Banach-Tarski paradox - should it break my intuition?
Next: Surely You're Joking, Mr. Zeilberger?